What do you think of Florida this year? Without doing any instant research, you probably know enough of the broad strokes here to form an opinion. The Gators hit the reset button after 2025, new head coach, new QB, another new chance to get it right. Coach John Sumrall is Florida’s fifth since Urban Meyer retired before the 2011 season.
Somehow, Nebraska’s only had four over that same stretch.
What do you think of Florida this year compared to Nebraska, presumably no instant research needed? I ask because ESPN’s Football Power Index would make the Gators about a 5-point favorite on a neutral field. Your gut reaction?
Mine: It’s not crazy, but it feels a little too decisive. Give Florida—which, again, is starting over—a 3-point edge over Nebraska, which is also a mystery but less so entering Matt Rhule’s fourth season, and that seems reasonable. FPI would also give a slight edge to Missouri, South Carolina, Auburn and Vanderbilt over NU on a neutral field.
None of which is to say these initial ratings are wrong1 or bad.2 If anything, to make an Election Night comparison, the July release of FPI is mostly just a county voting exactly like everyone expected. Nebraska was 30th in these first rankings, putting it ninth in the Big Ten. The wins projection is 6.7. This is a consensus on NU we could see coming in February—middle of the league, between six and seven wins.
But I chose Florida as my example to nitpick because it is of the conference where “it just means more.” As someone who uses systems like FPI all the time in the offseason and often hurries to their defense, I am starting to wonder if they can’t help but over index on the SEC.
I don’t doubt that the SEC is a better football conference top to bottom than the Big Ten right now. To its credit, the Big Ten has three straight national titles, showing that its best are among the best in college football right now. It’s more the mushy middle where the SEC gains ground.
Relevant Example No. 1: There are six SEC teams in the top 12 of the 2026 FPI ratings. The Big Ten has three. There are 12 SEC teams in the top 25, the Big Ten has seven.
Relevant Example No. 2: Last year there were six SEC teams in the top 12 of the preseason 2025 FPI ratings. The Big Ten had three. There were 12 SEC teams in the top 25, the Big Ten had seven.
How’s that for symmetry?3
The SEC finished 2025 with 10 teams in the FPI top 25, a net loss of two from the preseason. The Big Ten finished with eight, a net gain of one. Similar story in 2024 when the SEC went from 11 preseason FPI top 25 teams to 10 while the Big Ten gained one, going from five to six.
Unfortunately, that’s as far back as I’m willing to go given the current conference alignments didn’t exist earlier. And I’ll be the first to admit, this information alone doesn’t make for a slam-dunk case that rating systems consistently overvalue the SEC over the Big Ten.
Maybe, however, it is at least a first draft of a compelling opening argument in such a case. If the 2026 season plays out like the previous two, I’ll probably look at the 2027 preseason FPI and think, “OK, swap out one SEC team for one Big Ten team,” which is kind of a fun game to play. You can do it yourself. What if not South Carolina (23rd), but Nebraska (30th)? Or Washington (26th) and not Auburn (22nd)? Or get wild and ask why not Northwestern (60th) and not Texas A&M (11th)?
Of course, the big question is why this seems to be happening. While I don’t know all the specifics of all the rating systems out there, I have a pretty good idea the culprit is recruiting. It is a part of the game that is practically, if not perfectly, quantified. We all use the team recruiting rankings as at least a guide to understanding old fashioned talent acquisition. Based mostly on geography and population, the SEC is always going to have an edge over the Big Ten there.
But does that inherent edge carry the same weight it did five years ago. I think we’re seeing evidence it may not. There are more on ramps to building a roster these days, and we’re still figuring out how to assess those.
This is all probably to the Big Ten’s advantage overall, or maybe that’s just me being too subjective. When I was deep into following horse racing, I loved a stalking horse. Give me the option with a better price who was built to sit a couple of paces off the favorites. If that horse got the right trip, they’d reel in a couple of those favorites more often than not.
That feels like the Big Ten to me at this moment in the sport, even after back-to-back-to-back national titles. It has heavyweights, but as a whole it is not the heaviest and that’s just fine for the conference.
Still need Nebraska to go get Florida, though. And maybe Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Auburn and Missouri in the process.
Some of them will be, but most won’t.
Definitely not when you consider how close to the bullseye the rankings landed on all 138 teams rather than on one team.
And a Not Quite as Relevant Example No. 3, hence the footnote, but look at this consolidation of power. These are but projections, but 76% of the top 25 is SEC or Big Ten the past two years in FPI.
I agree that the FPI is overvaluing because of recruiting rankings. we need a better way to consider portal additions. in asking one of the bigger language models, which are not math models, it seems that the SEC basically stayed the same as last year. they just changed teams, while the big 10 actually went and got players. "SEC: Maintained its status as the premier destination for interior defensive tackles and premium SEC-to-SEC lateral transfers. Programs like Texas, LSU, and Ole Miss aggressively used NIL leverage to secure proven, plug-and-play starters capable of handling the physical wear of the conference.
Big Ten: Led the country in raw volume for rotational Big West-style run stuffers and developmental Edge rushers. The focus here was rebuilding trench depth via mid-major standouts and Pac-12 remnants, exemplified by Penn State completely overhauling its interior look using multiple West Coast and Big 12 acquisitions.
The Rest of the Landscape
Big 12: Functioned heavily as a developmental churn zone, losing top-tier edge talent to the Power Two while aggressively backfilling rosters with high-volume, productive Group of Five defensive linemen.
ACC: Relied on a highly targeted, top-heavy approach, where a few select programs secured high-profile individual pass rushers, though the conference lacked the comprehensive cross-roster trench depth accumulated by the SEC."