Connect with us

Published

4 years ago

on

8:00 AM ET

Former West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck still remembers, with vivid clarity, the day Pittsburgh and Syracuse officially announced they were bailing on the Big East to move to the ACC. He was headed east from Morgantown to the West Virginia-Maryland football game on Sept. 17, 2011, and made a plan to get to league commissioner John Marinatto as quickly as possible.

The two met alone in a suite inside Maryland’s football stadium. Marinatto sat in a high-backed chair at the bar as the two briefly discussed how exactly the Big East would survive as a football-playing conference. The elephant in the room, of course, was that Pitt and Syracuse had delivered a double gut punch that sent shock waves across the league, signaling to every remaining football-playing member that the time had come to forget about conference loyalties and look out for itself.

Neither said what appears obvious, in hindsight. Even if they wanted to, they never had the chance. Marinatto got a phone call five minutes into their meeting. Luck watched as Marinatto turned ashen and pale, then fell to the ground.

“I remember saying to myself, ‘Oh my god, the conference is falling apart, the commissioner just [fainted] in front of me and I don’t know what to do,'” Luck said in a phone interview, adding that the call concerned Dave Gavitt, the Big East founder, who died just as his beloved league was breaking up.

Luck raced to find medical personnel, who helped Marinatto regain consciousness. But there is a reason, 10 years later, that Luck remembers that moment so clearly. That day serves as a point of demarcation where nothing would ever be the same for the Big East or its league members.

In short order, TCU pulled out of its agreement to join the Big East after just 11 months. Forty days after Luck met with Marinatto, West Virginia announced it was moving on to the Big 12, beating out Louisville in a high-stakes race that drew in high-powered politicians and pitted two Big East members against each other for the final open spot.

Skepticism among remaining teams was high; trust was low. Presidents, athletic directors and coaches made calls behind one another’s backs to find a secure conference home that would not only provide stability but also a financial windfall that guaranteed their own futures, all while sitting in Big East meetings identifying schools to add in an effort to save the conference. As Big East officials worked on creating a Western flank with Boise State and San Diego State, remaining schools Louisville, Cincinnati, UConn, South Florida and Rutgers kept making entreaties to other conferences to find an escape route.

To be sure, the Big East did not set off the wave of realignment that impacted every Power 5 conference between 2010 and 2012. The Big Ten did that when it announced in 2009 that it would begin exploring expansion possibilities before ultimately adding Nebraska in 2010.

But the Big East was the only major conference to lose half its football-playing members over that span, and that ended up delivering a blow from which the conference could not recover. Ultimately, the basketball-playing contingent retained the Big East name and split off; the remaining football-playing members joined with nine new schools and formed the American Athletic Conference.

For those with deep Big East connections who watched the events unfold in real time, hurt feelings, anger and sadness remain 10 years later. Marinatto, who died in June at age 64, blamed himself for what happened to his beloved league on his watch, according to multiple former colleagues. He never granted an interview after he resigned as Big East commissioner in 2012.

“I don’t know if anybody could have stopped what happened from happening,” one former league official said. “Especially when you had schools hell-bent on taking care of themselves.”

Of course, the schools that left view what happened much differently.

“We were all aware of the movement happening around us,” former Syracuse athletic director Daryl Gross said. “We just had a TV deal fall through with the Big East, and the Big East is looking like a burning ship, and there’s a cruise ship here to pick us up. So what are you going to do?”

TO UNDERSTAND HOW everything unraveled for the Big East, a short history lesson is in order. The Big East formed in 1979 as a basketball conference and stood proudly behind that sport, even rejecting Penn State as a member in the early 1980s.

But as football grew in power and financial stature, the league invited in Miami, Virginia Tech, West Virginia and several others, and began sponsoring football in 1991, allowing long-standing league members like Pitt, Syracuse and Boston College to play football in a conference for the first time. But doing so always left the league slightly off-kilter compared to others because of the unusual football/basketball dynamic.

“Ever since the start of the Big East, there always was concern about the football schools breaking away,” one former Big East official said.

Realignment hit the Big East first in 2003 when Miami and Virginia Tech left for the ACC. That summer, the remaining Big East football-playing schools decided they wanted to split away, believing their interests were no longer aligned with those of the basketball-playing schools. Kevin O’Malley, a TV executive-turned-consultant, was brought in to help then-commissioner Mike Tranghese keep the league together.

“They had actually drafted a letter that was going to be sent,” O’Malley recalled. “As far as they were concerned, the basketball schools were history. What I pointed out was something that is a recurring theme through all of this, which is how much the basketball schools and the football schools needed each other. It took a while, but we put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.”

Boston College eventually left too. Though the league added Louisville, USF and Cincinnati to fill in the gaps, the growing importance of football from a revenue-generating standpoint, most importantly during television contract negotiations and making sure it had a seat at the table in the old Bowl Championship Series, only widened the chasm between the football and basketball schools.

It became much harder for the league to not only figure out its identity — caught between its basketball tradition and the riches of football — but also to keep everybody moving forward together.

“There are no rules in this game of realignment, right? There wasn’t an arbiter. You couldn’t go to the NCAA or the federal government. It was a game we likened to musical chairs. You don’t want to be the one standing when the music stops.”

Former West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck

“Over time, it got more contentious because the basketball side was always wary of the football side,” one former Big East athletic director said. “And as we drove some of those ideas, it was viewed as more of a football play instead of a league play.”

That essentially is at the heart of where so much went wrong, starting in December 2009. When the Big Ten announced it would explore expansion over the ensuing 12-18 months, athletic directors across the country realized a seismic shift in the landscape was about to happen. Some schools and conferences would end up with an enormous financial windfall, while others would scramble to find a suitable home.

“The day the Big Ten announced that,” former Pitt athletic director Steve Pederson said, “I think everybody said, ‘OK, here we go.’ If you don’t know whether you’re going to be one that’s going to be selected, the risk is high. So we really tried to come up with some kind of way to cement the Big East together. Understandably, a lot of schools just didn’t want to make that kind of commitment. They said, ‘Well, what if what if we had a chance to go to one of these conferences?'”

Gross remembers attending one set of meetings before the conference basketball tournament in 2011, looking at the agenda and seeing nothing listed on the topic of expansion.

“To this day, I have no idea why no one wanted to touch the subject,” Gross said. “It was almost like, if we don’t talk about it, then we don’t have to worry about it.”

He raised those concerns during the meeting. Afterward, another athletic director walked up to him and asked, “Are you guys leaving?”

Gross maintains that at that point Syracuse had no plans to leave. “I was just trying to figure out, ‘What’s the plan?'” he said. “I felt so lost. I thought for sure this would be the biggest discussion topic in the entire room.”

Whether the league was proactive or not is a matter of perspective. Multiple times, the Big East tried to form a partnership with several Big 12 schools, but it was only in response to the possibility that Texas and Oklahoma would leave.

Once Texas and Oklahoma decided to stay put, the idea fizzled.

Marinatto sent a bottle of champagne to then-Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe to congratulate him on keeping his league from disintegrating.

Soon, there wouldn’t be much to celebrate.

THE BIGGEST DISCUSSION topic in the Big East became its television rights. At the time, the Big East was working with ESPN on a new rights deal that would bump its annual payout from $36 million per year to $155 million per year. All told, the new deal would be worth more than $1.3 billion over the life of the contract. As its television partner at the time, ESPN had an exclusive negotiating window to make a deal happen with the Big East.

But there were multiple presidents and athletic directors who wanted to wait and take the Big East to the open market once that window with ESPN closed, believing its entire rights package was worth more than what ESPN was offering. That group included Georgetown, Pitt and Rutgers.

“We just felt like at the time that the deal didn’t reflect our value,” Pederson said. “As you looked at the numbers, you just said, ‘If you’re going to sign a long-term deal that you feel is undervalued, then you’re just going to be sorry almost the minute you sign it.’ We understood we were not in the same position at that point as the Big Ten or the ACC, but we felt we were in a better position than the way the numbers came out.”

Though the majority of league schools wanted to take the deal, those with misgivings controlled the conversation and became the loudest voices in the room. Things came to a head in May 2011 when the newly expanded Pac-12 with Colorado and Utah aboard announced a television package of its own with ESPN and Fox worth a reported $3 billion — substantially greater than the Big East offer.

That caused everyone in the league to reevaluate what was on the table, and the decision ultimately was made to walk away from the proposed TV deal.

“That deal came out of nowhere, and people started to ask, ‘If they’re willing to pay that for the Pac-12, why wouldn’t we be able to get more?'” one person with knowledge of the discussions said. “So now everybody’s thinking Comcast has all this money, and we had a year to go before the end of our contract, so people said we should go to the open market.”

One former Big East official said ESPN asked for a counteroffer, but none ever came. O’Malley described multiple athletic directors as being “in disbelief” that the league walked away from the deal.

“I’ve always been the ‘one in the hand is better than two in the bush,’ and that would have kept us very stable,” then-Louisville athletic director Tom Jurich said. “But I was the newcomer talking. We were very happy where we were, and maybe those schools weren’t happy. Maybe they had bigger aspirations. I don’t know.”

Officials from the schools that eventually left deny they were in negotiations with other conferences at the time the TV deal was nixed. But there are some former Big East officials who remain dubious.

One went so far as to say “sabotage” would be an accurate way to describe the way some schools led the push against the TV deal only to later leave, though others in the room at the time felt that was too strong of a word.

“There were so many people that just loved the conference and were so invested in it, and then you had double agents in the room,” another former Big East official said.

Multiple sources pushed back on that assertion.

“There was sincere and genuine effort put towards trying to figure out a way to shore ourselves up and present more value to the market to capitalize on our deal,” one former school official said. “This theory that we deliberately tried to stop the TV deal from happening because we were all at the finish line with other conferences is bulls—.”

Multiple sources confirmed that Pitt and Rutgers tried early in the process to get league members to agree to a grant of rights, in which schools relinquish control of their TV rights to the conference. But there was no consensus. With no grant of rights, no expansion plan and no television deal, there was simply nothing to hold the league together.

Add to that a perceived vacuum in leadership — with the more mild-mannered and less well-connected Marinatto now the commissioner instead of Tranghese — and it seemed like a foregone conclusion that the competing agendas threatened to fracture the conference for good.

“There was no guarantee if we did that deal things weren’t going to still shift, but it would have helped the schools left behind to at least have that in their pocket, and if we had to renegotiate it down, fine, but we still had it,” a former Big East official said.

Despite the behind-the-scenes drama, league officials spoke optimistically at media days in Rhode Island in August 2011 about the lucrative potential for a TV package despite turning down ESPN. One league official told The New York Times, “We’re excited. It feels like the tide is turning in our favor.”

Clearly, not everyone felt that way.

Gross, who was in favor of taking the TV deal, said once that fell through “things were fragile and could fall apart or crumble.” He said he first heard from the ACC in early September, recalling that his phone rang as he walked to his car following a tennis match at the US Open. When ACC officials asked whether Syracuse would be interested in joining, Gross said yes without hesitation.

Within a week, the Syracuse trustees met at a hotel in Beverly Hills, California — where they had traveled to watch Syracuse play USC in football. Gross made a presentation, and the group voted to accept the ACC invitation. Similarly, the situation with Pitt and the ACC moved quickly in September. Both Gross and Pederson said they had no idea they would be joining together until the end of the process.

Despite the uncertainty and fragility of the Big East, multiple people described feeling “blindsided” that Syracuse and Pitt — two of the league’s most identifiable members, including one founding member — would leave. One person said it “shook the conference to its core.”

“Syracuse and the Big East were synonymous with one another for the entire history of the conference,” a former Big East official said. “When they left, there was no recovering.”

Added Jurich: “I know a lot of people’s feelings were hurt, especially the schools that had been in that league for a while. They were crushed because they had such a great loyalty and relationships with those schools.”

Pederson, when asked whether he thought the decision to leave surprised the league, said Pitt was always upfront about the situation. “I guess that would be from their perspective,” he said. “Nobody knew exactly where anybody might be going, and all those negotiations are very private. So maybe there were people that were surprised. I don’t know.”

At that point, any existing loyalties seemed to vanish.

“When one starts splitting away, then the avalanche occurs,” Jurich said. “Everybody was scrambling. It’s, ‘What are we going to do? How are we going to survive? How do we keep our head above water now that the TV deal is out?’ You don’t have a chance to use that as any leverage. From our standpoint, all I cared about was our program.”

Meanwhile, TCU, which agreed in November 2010 to join the Big East as a way of boosting its profile as a member of a BCS conference, pulled out to join the Big 12 in mid-October. By then, the Big East was pushing hard for Boise State to join as a football-only member — all while Louisville and West Virginia were jockeying for the last open spot in the Big 12.

“There are no rules in this game of realignment, right?” Luck said. “There wasn’t an arbiter. You couldn’t go to the NCAA or the federal government. It was a game we likened to musical chairs. You don’t want to be the one standing when the music stops.”

BOISE STATE PRESIDENT Robert Kustra took a keen interest in realignment, believing his football program had positioned itself well for a move into a bigger conference with better access to the BCS. In 2010, he met with the presidents of Utah, TCU and BYU to discuss whether Boise State was ready to make a move from the WAC to the Mountain West.

“I gave my salesman pitch, and then I said to them, ‘How can I know that the Mountain West is going to be the Mountain West it is today?'” Kustra recalled in a phone interview. “‘Are you all going to be there for the Mountain West?’ And these presidents, they were either lying through their teeth or they were completely ignorant of their athletic directors’ plans.”

Only a few days after Boise State announced it would join the Mountain West, Utah accepted an invitation to join the Pac-10. Then BYU announced it was going independent in football. In November 2010, TCU agreed to join the Big East. This was not the Mountain West the Broncos agreed to join.

At this point, Boise State had played in two BCS games as an undefeated team (2007 and 2010 Fiesta Bowls) but had never gotten a legitimate shot at playing for a national championship. Beyond national championships, the Mountain West did not have an automatic spot into the BCS, meaning Boise State would have to go undefeated every year and then hope for a selection as an at-large team.

Kustra felt he had to do something to improve those chances. He had previously lobbied the Pac-12 to no avail. So when the Big East, with an automatic bid into the BCS, called in October 2011 to see whether the Broncos would be interested in a football-only partnership, he listened.

At the time, Boise State was ranked in the top five. On paper, the move made sense: Boise State needed access to a BCS conference, and the Big East needed to fill gaps and boost its football-playing profile. As a way to make its move east more palatable, Boise State needed a travel partner from the West, boosting San Diego State into the conversation.

“I personally thought that taking the Boise State story on the road with the Big East was a great opportunity to get national coverage that we weren’t getting here in the Intermountain region,” Kustra said.

The Mountain West had taken one hit after another during realignment and could not afford to lose Boise State, its highest-profile school. Commissioner Craig Thompson worked the phones to both Kustra and then-San Diego State president Elliot Hirshman, telling them both, “There’s a lot of money being dangled in front of your face, but there’s not going to be a Big East in the long term,” according to a person with knowledge of their conversation. Thompson declined to comment for this story.

The Big East also had conversations with Air Force, Navy and Army but ultimately opted for football-only partnerships with Boise State and San Diego State. In addition, UCF, Houston and SMU would join as full-time members. The moves gave the Big East the largest footprint in the country.

But because the conference looked so different, nobody knew whether it would retain its BCS status or what a future television deal would be worth. Skepticism remained that bringing in Boise State and San Diego State from the other side of the country would actually keep the Big East together. The basketball schools were not thrilled either.

Though Boise State coach Chris Petersen and San Diego State coach Rocky Long spoke in positive terms about the move publicly, they expressed reservations privately. Long declined interview requests for this story; Petersen did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

“There were some ideas that were not ideal, but when you’re in a position like that, you start to look at everything,” Jurich said. “They were not just saying let’s put our head in the sand and say we’re fine when it truly wasn’t. Did it fit for everybody? Absolutely not, including us. It didn’t, but I don’t think you could look at and say it’s about fit when you were looking for survival.”

Several former Big East officials still believe this alignment could have worked long term at the time. But in April 2012, a plan for a four-team playoff was announced, and it became clear there would be no automatic qualifying designation for the Big East under the new format, taking away a huge advantage the league had over the Mountain West.

Marinatto resigned in May 2012 with the league in turmoil. As one friend of his said, “He was just a guy that was the student manager for the basketball team for Dave Gavitt at Providence College and was Mike Tranghese’s friend, and was handed the reins by the two of them. And the conference collapsed. That’s the weight that he carried with him.”

Whether he could have done anything differently to keep the league together is a question up for debate, considering all the outside factors that were beyond his control.

“I don’t think anybody deserves any particular blame for anything,” Pederson said.

Mike Aresco was hired as commissioner in August with an eye toward maximizing television rights. But first, Notre Dame announced it would be taking all of its Big East-affiliated sports to the ACC while remaining independent in football. When Rutgers (Big Ten) and Louisville (ACC) announced their own departures over a one-week span in November 2012, the Big East as a football-playing conference fell apart.

For good.

In mid-December 2012, the seven Big East basketball-playing schools announced a split from the football-playing schools. A few weeks later, Boise State struck a deal to return to the Mountain West. San Diego State followed shortly after that. The Broncos were given the green light to sell their home games separately from the conference’s television package, allowing them to earn more money than the other members of the conference — about $1.8 million more per year in revenues.

Kustra said the Mountain West presidents at the time called him and offered more money from television rights as a way to get Boise State back into the league.

“I’m asked, if you had to do all over again, what would you do?” Kustra said. “And I’d say, I would do exactly the way I did it. I didn’t know that the Big East was going to fold. But look what we got out of it. We landed on our feet financially. And to this day, the Mountain West is still trying to figure out what to do about that.”

Tensions over the special deal Boise State secured have grown over the past several years — and it was a major point of contention during the Mountain West’s most recent television rights negotiation.

Meanwhile, the newly reconfigured Big East – with Xavier, Creighton and Butler – has been led by Villanova basketball over the last decade, winning national titles in 2016 and 2018. But perhaps the biggest news in recent years involved UConn, which decided to go independent in football so it could rejoin the Big East, where it thrived as a basketball power. The Huskies officially rejoined in 2020 after a seven-year absence.

The American Athletic Conference — renamed and rebranded after the basketball split — has thrived as a Group of 5 conference. The league has secured the most Group of 5 automatic bids into the four-team playoff. With the playoff format soon expanding to 12 teams, its chances of making the playoff have increased. But the same could be said for Boise State in the Mountain West.

“Realignment hit us pretty hard,” said Aresco, now the AAC commissioner. “We were in disarray, making sure that the conference would survive. But it turns out, not only did we survive, we thrived immediately. We’ve been thriving ever since.”

While that is true, there are still those with a deep abiding affinity for the Big East who remain emotional about its breakup 10 years later. Because, as one former league official said, “it’s not what it was and will never be the same again.”

ESPN reporter David Hale contributed to this report.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Sports

Biggest concern, what’s left to play for and more: Post-trade-deadline guide for all 30 MLB teams

Published

5 hours ago

on

August 5, 2025

By

Biggest concern, what's left to play for and more: Post-trade-deadline guide for all 30 MLB teams

  • Bradford DoolittleAug 5, 2025, 07:00 AM ET

    Close

      • MLB writer and analyst for ESPN.com
      • Former NBA writer and analyst for ESPN.com
      • Been with ESPN since 2013

For all the work we do in setting up and covering the MLB trade deadline, the transaction-related activity in some years is a little underwhelming. That was not the case in 2025.

According to my tracking mechanisms, the wild 2025 deadline featured 92 veteran trade candidates on new teams and, likewise, 92 prospects headed to new organizations, seeking their big league opportunity. After all that, we turn our attention to reassessing the new baseball landscape.

This is what we do with every edition of Stock Watch, but there is never as much mystery in the outcomes as there is after a heavy period of roster movement, which yields my two favorite Stock Watch editions: after the in-season trade deadline (now) and during the hot stove season, after the offseason’s heaviest waves of transactions are completed.

As we did last year at this time, we will hone in on each team’s stretch run. This looks different for contenders than those looking to the future, but even for the noncontenders, it’s about what is left to accomplish on the field in 2025 — and how those aims might be achieved.

Jump to a tier:

Top-tier contenders | Second-tier contenders | Teams just hanging on
Teams looking ahead | The Colorado Rockies

Top-tier contenders

Teams with a 90% or better shot at the playoffs

Win average: 95.9 (Last month: 87.5, 9th)
In the playoffs: 99.2% (Last: 61.7%)
Champions: 11.3% (Last: 2.1%)

Lingering concern: Middle-of-the-order power

The Brewers have soared to the top spot of Stock Watch with startling velocity. You might view Milwaukee’s deadline approach as a bit passive, but when you’ve gotten so far by finding solutions within your organization, why change? The Brewers don’t have many obvious needs. Even the shortcoming noted above was listed only because no roster is perfect. But though Milwaukee ranks 15th in isolated power for the season, its offense has been baseball’s hottest, joining a run prevention crew that was already stellar.

Win average: 95.8 (Last: 96.1, 3rd)
In the playoffs: 99.4% (Last: 97.2%)
Champions: 13.6% (Last: 12.6%)

Lingering concern: Frontline pitching

This seems like a big-ticket concern, and it is. Chicago’s rotation and bullpen have been more passable than good this season, at least when the offense has been rolling up big numbers. The club’s passive deadline approach didn’t upgrade that outlook. What the staff needed was some dynamism, whether one of the top closers who moved or a top-of-the-rotation starter. Given Kyle Tucker‘s walk-year contract status, a more all-in mindset was justified.

Win average: 95.8 (Last: 101.4, 1st)
In the playoffs: 99.4% (Last: 99.7%)
Champions: 15.4% (Last: 24.0%)

Lingering concern: Pitching health

What else could it be? All those hurlers who seemed to comprise a super team type of depth chart in the offseason still exist. But the Dodgers’ dizzying turnstile of pitchers going on and off the injured list has never let up. Given what happens to pitchers once they join the Dodgers, maybe L.A. was doing the rest of the majors a small favor by mostly standing pat at the deadline. With the Padres positioned to push the Dodgers to the finish in the National League West, the stretch run can’t just be about rehabbing pitchers for October, either.

Win average: 93.3 (Last: 97.9, 2nd)
In the playoffs: 99.2% (Last: 99.8%)
Champions: 11.3% (Last: 14.4%)

Lingering concern: Offensive consistency

When it comes to the overall pecking order, Detroit has come back to the pack. The Tigers focused their deadline work on the pitching staff, to mixed results. Yet, the Tigers’ offensive regression has been the primary culprit for their recent dip. Detroit is deep in prospects but has a right-now opportunity that doesn’t seem like it has been maximized. If Detroit returns to its early-season offensive exploits, though, it won’t matter.

Win average: 92.7 (Last: 93.5, 5th)
In the playoffs: 96.8% (Last: 93.8%)
Champions: 7.8% (Last: 7.6%)

Lingering concern: What about Andrew Painter?

After the Phillies’ deadline pickups of Jhoan Duran and Harrison Bader, this is their first-world dilemma. They don’t need Painter, the talented righty who has been in the minors all season after returning from injury. His recent outings have been solid, but he’s still not putting up his pre-injury strikeout numbers. He’s a secret weapon at this point. Painter might not appear in the regular season but make the postseason roster anyway.

Win average: 90.7 (Last: 86.9, 10th)
In the playoffs: 92.9% (Last: 72.7%)
Champions: 5.3% (Last: 1.8%)

Lingering concern: Anthony Santander

The Jays didn’t acquire Duran, but they made a couple of key bullpen pickups in Seranthony Dominguez and Louis Varland. We’ll see if that suffices. The other big need was a middle-of-the-order bat, a void Toronto thought it filled when it signed Santander. Santander has been out since the end of May and contributed little before that. The Blue Jays need Santander’s recovery to pick up and for him to be the thumper they signed.

Second-tier contenders

Teams with playoff odds between 40% and 89%

Win average: 90.2 (Last: 85.6, 11th)
In the playoffs: 89.0% (Last: 41.3%)
Champions: 4.5% (Last: 1.1%)

Lingering concern: History

Sure, a future All-Star Game might be half-populated with one-time San Diego prospects, but for now, A.J. Preller’s machinations have eliminated any glaring holes on his roster. The depth after the active-26 group isn’t great, so health is crucial. But as constructed, the Padres are as well-situated for the postseason as anyone. They, along with Seattle and Milwaukee, will try to snap a zero-for-eternity title drought. Any of the three could do it.

Win average: 90.1 (Last: 89.4, 7th)
In the playoffs: 89.4% (Last: 75.7%)
Champions: 4.5% (Last: 3.2%)

Lingering concern: Juan Soto

The Mets didn’t address their rotation at the deadline, but added enough to the relief staff that it’s not hard to lay out an October blueprint for a bullpen-heavy pitching staff. As for Soto, it’s perhaps not fair to call him a concern. This hasn’t been his best season, but it has been a good season, at least by the standards of most players. But Soto at his .300/.400/.600 best can carry a team, and as the Mets try to emerge from the crowded field of contenders, the time is coming for him to do it.

Win average: 89.5 (Last: 94.7, 4th)
In the playoffs: 88.0% (Last: 98.5%)
Champions: 6.1% (Last: 8.9%)

Lingering concern: How much Yordan Alvarez will the Astros get?

It has been a lost season for Alvarez, who has been out since early May because of a hand injury. Reportedly, Alvarez has been ramping up his activity and should return at some point. But can he be more than a marginal upgrade? Despite the Astros’ deadline pickups, their once-mighty offense won’t be an October threat — if Houston gets that far — unless Alvarez is ready to rake. As the Astros have come back to the pack in the American League West, their offense has been the coldest in baseball. Alvarez is their best hope of getting back to at least average.

Win average: 88.9 (Last: 79.8, 19th)
In the playoffs: 87.6% (Last: 17.8%)
Champions: 5.5% (Last: 0.3%)

Lingering concern: Starting rotation

This team makes a lot more sense if you plug a true No. 2 (or a co-No. 1) in the rotation next to Garrett Crochet. The Red Sox are playing so well it seems greedy to quibble, but what will this look like in the playoffs? Some teams tread water with the rotation and ride the bullpen in October. Boston’s bullpen has been solid, but it seems like the Red Sox will need more balance. Boston needs big finishes from every starter not named Crochet. And Crochet, too.

Win average: 88.8 (Last: 92.4, 6th)
In the playoffs: 87.2% (Last: 95.8%)
Champions: 8.0% (Last: 12.8%)

Lingering concern: Run prevention

With all of their bullpen pickups, the Yankees have set themselves up for the postseason, but they’ve got to get there first. New York still leads the AL in run prevention, but it has been two months since the Yankees have played like a playoff team. The rotation and bullpen have struggled, but so too has the mistake-prone defense. New York’s power-based offense is dangerous, especially when Aaron Judge is healthy, but the Yankees aren’t going to bludgeon their way back to the World Series.

Win average: 86.8 (Last: 85.6, 11th)
In the playoffs: 70.4% (Last: 66.5%)
Champions: 3.4% (Last: 2.4%)

Lingering concern: Offensive regression

Getting Cal Raleigh and Eugenio Suarez back in the same lineup is a coup, and there’s no doubt the Mariners’ offensive profile has improved. But it’s highly unlikely that what we’ll see from Raleigh and Suarez over the rest of the season will match what they’ve done to this point. It’s not saying they’ll collapse but to underscore how their output has been off the charts. Seattle will need plenty of production in addition to that duo, and the Mariners are well-positioned to get it.

Win average: 84.1 (Last: 81.1, 17th)
In the playoffs: 43.2% (Last: 27.3%)
Champions: 2.1% (Last: 0.5%)

Lingering concern: Bullpen

The Rangers’ offense remains confounding, but lately it has been so consistently productive that it has fueled Texas’ resurgence in the AL West race. The rotation remains the standout unit, especially with the addition of Merrill Kelly. Still, though newcomers Danny Coulombe and Phil Maton help, you can’t help but look at the prospects it took to acquire Kelly and wonder how much that offer could have been tweaked for Griffin Jax or Jhoan Duran.

Teams just hanging on

Teams on the “miracles do happen” tier

Win average: 82.3 (Last: 82.5, 15th)
In the playoffs: 12.3% (Last: 19.4%)
Champions: 0.4% (Last: 0.4%)

Hope for a run: Powerhouse rotation

This was going to be the case even without the addition of Zack Littell during what was an odd deadline for the Reds, who reinforced areas of strength without addressing areas of greatest need. But with Hunter Greene nearing his return, if he, Andrew Abbott and Nick Lodolo all finish strong, the Reds will be a force down the stretch.

Win average: 81.8 (Last: 84.4, 14th)
In the playoffs: 9.4% (Last: 35.5%)
Champions: 0.2% (Last: 1.2%)

Hope for a run: Exploding stars

The Giants’ subtraction at the deadline wasn’t quite a white flag, but it was a recognition that the once-promising season had petered out. Still, with the Giants off the radar, you can see that each unit features at least one All-Star-level player: Rafael Devers, Matt Chapman, Willy Adames, Logan Webb, Robbie Ray and dynamic new closer Randy Rodriguez. The roster is thinner, but maybe the Giants have another run in them.

Win average: 80.9 (Last: 76.2, 23rd)
In the playoffs: 12.5% (Last: 5.9%)
Champions: 0.1% (Last: 0.1%)

Hope for a run: Belief

Some of the many teams in baseball’s wide midsection looked at their mediocrity as an excuse to punt. The Royals looked at it as an opportunity to have some fun. Kansas City was 39-46 at the end of June. Now, the Royals, in Boston facing one of the teams they are chasing in the wild-card race, are one of the AL’s hottest teams. Injuries and underperformance have hampered Kansas City for most of the season, but the front office believed in the group enough to address the holes in a meaningful way. It’s not fancy. It’s just trying.

Win average: 80.3 (Last: 88.2, 8th)
In the playoffs: 10.2% (Last: 82.4%)
Champions: 0.4% (Last: 4.5%)

Hope for a run: It can’t get worse?

The Rays are really hard to pin down. They exit the deadline as baseball’s coldest team. They aren’t out of the race in terms of record or games behind, but more because of trajectory. That downward trend was neither helped nor harmed by a deadline strategy that was an odd mix of adding and subtracting. Even the addition of the dynamic Jax is a mixed bag, given it took Taj Bradley to get him.

Win average: 79.4 (Last: 85.5, 13th)
In the playoffs: 2.6% (Last: 43.2%)
Champions: 0.1% (Last: 1.0%)

Hope for a run: There’s always another next year

The Cardinals’ slide, combined with their deadline-related offloading, has them on more of a path to challenge the Pirates for last than the Reds for third. And wasn’t that the design all along? It’s too bad St. Louis played well early this season, or it might have gone into full reset mode earlier, though all of those no-trade clauses would have made it difficult. This is a proud franchise, but this season has been a head-scratcher. If, from the end of last season, the aim of the organization was to maximize its chances of winning in 2025, the Cardinals could have mounted a sustained run. And it’s hard to see what would have been lost in the effort.

Win average: 79.3 (Last: 77.3, 21st)
In the playoffs: 6.5% (Last: 8.5%)
Champions: 0.1% (Last: 0.1%)

Hope for a run: Jose Ramirez

The Guardians underwent a soft unload at the deadline, trading franchise stalwart Shane Bieber to Toronto. Same old, same old for this franchise. The good part of that stick-to-the-plan organizational cornerstone is that it also encompasses keeping the great Ramirez, who shows zero signs of decline in his 13th season. He might be even better than ever, and if Ramirez were to finish on a massive heater and lead the Guardians into the playoffs on a miracle run, Aaron Judge’s injury problems and Cal Raleigh’s possible regression open the door for Ramirez to win his first MVP.

Teams looking ahead to 2026 and beyond

Playing out the string and hoping for better luck next time

Win average: 78.1 (Last: 69.7, 26th)
In the playoffs: 1.6% (Last: 0.1%)
Champions: 0.0% (Last: 0.0%)

Remaining objective: Dig that pitching

The Marlins are really fun to watch, and have been for some time. After a weekend spent throttling the Yankees, it seems like others are taking notice. A true playoff push would involve a really unlikely acceleration of this surge, mostly because none of the current six playoff teams in the NL seems likely to collapse. That doesn’t mean the stifling Marlins rotation can’t hit the hot stove season with momentum, and focus the front office’s offseason plan on adding offense. Also note: The playoff-bound Tigers were in this tier in last season’s edition of this Stock Watch. You never know.

Win average: 77.3 (Last: 82.4, 16th)
In the playoffs: 0.9% (Last: 20.9%)
Champions: 0.0% (Last: 0.5%)

Remaining objective: See what’s what with Jordan Lawlar

It has been a disappointing season for Arizona. After lofty preseason expectations, injuries poked a hole in the Diamondbacks’ contention bubble, and an aggressive offloading deadline sucked out the rest of the air. Not that GM Mike Hazen did the wrong thing; it’s just a very different place than we thought Arizona was headed. The departure of Suarez is tough, but at least Arizona can take an extended look at Lawlar at the hot corner — if he can get healthy, which isn’t a given. It has been that kind of season.

Win average: 76.1 (Last: 79.7, 20th)
In the playoffs: 1.3% (Last: 18.0%)
Champions: 0.0% (Last: 0.3%)

Remaining objective: Learn everybody’s name

Some saw the Twins’ “everything must go” deadline approach as malpractice, probably more driven by money than winning. Others saw it as smart and a rapid accumulation of young prospect talent. The two conclusions aren’t mutually exclusive. It depends on how quickly the Twins can reconstruct their bullpen and how many of the newbies pan out.

Win average: 76.0 (Last: 76.3, 22nd)
In the playoffs: 1.1% (Last: 6.2%)
Champions: 0.0% (Last: 0.0%)

Remaining objective: To keep trying

The Angels’ deadline behavior suggests they see themselves in the tier above this. The numbers don’t agree that that is likely, but, what is lost by the attempt? The Angels have exceeded tepid expectations for the most part. You wonder, given the need for an unusual leap from here, what sector of the Angels’ roster might be situated to fuel such a rise.

Win average: 72.4 (Last: 80.0, 18th)
In the playoffs: 0.0% (Last: 11.2%)
Champions: 0.0% (Last: 0.4%)

Remaining objective: Get to the offseason

Atlanta’s season has been an exercise in waiting for a Braves surge that never happened. Underperformance put Atlanta in a hole and a worsening injury picture sealed its fate. Some hard questions will need to be answered in the offseason. You can blame injuries, but this season, after last season, constitutes an ugly trend.

Win average: 72.3 (Last: 71.1, 25th)
In the playoffs: 0.1% (Last: 0.7%)
Champions: 0.0% (Last: 0.0%)

Remaining objective: Play the kids

The names you want to see as much as possible from here: Adley Rutschman, Gunnar Henderson, Jackson Holliday, Jordan Westburg, Coby Mayo, Colton Cowser, Heston Kjerstad, Samuel Basallo … just turn them loose and see what it looks like. That’s what this deadline was all about, wasn’t it?

Win average: 69.9 (Last: 71.8, 24th)
In the playoffs: 0.0% (Last: 0.3%)
Champions: 0.0% (Last: 0.0%)

Remaining objective: Help Paul Skenes to a Cy Young

Give Pirates fans something to hang their horizontal-striped hats on. Give Skenes some support, allow him to finish strong and see if he can beat the NL’s other leading hopefuls despite a lack of high-stakes action. The Pirates haven’t had a Cy Young Award-winner since Doug Drabek … in 1990.

Win average: 69.5 (Last: 65.9, 28th)
In the playoffs: 0.0% (Last: 0.0%)
Champions: 0.0% (Last: 0.0%)

Remaining objective: Finish strong

Sure, this sounds like a generic, lame goal for the rest of the season. But the Athletics have been solid and fun to watch for long stretches of the season. A few weeks of historically awful pitching killed hopes of real competitiveness, but the A’s have responded nicely in the weeks since that slump. The deadline pickup of Leo De Vries only sharpens the anticipation of what’s to come. Keep the good tidings coming headed into the offseason.

Win average: 64.5 (Last: 68.3, 27th)
In the playoffs: 0.0% (Last: 0.0%)
Champions: 0.0% (Last: 0.0%)

Remaining objective: Develop some kind of foothold

The Nationals have me confounded. They have some clear reasons to be excited, led by James Wood. But they’ve been trying to piece together a rebuild for a long time and show no signs of coming out of it. Rather than showing positive strides like the team after them in this Stock Watch, the Nationals have trended ice cold on both sides of the ball as we’ve gotten deeper into the season. They fired their brain trust, which might have been necessary, but it only intensified the problem of figuring out what this team is or where it’s headed.

Win average: 62.1 (Last: 56.2, 29th)
In the playoffs: 0.0% (Last: 0.0%)
Champions: 0.0% (Last: 0.0%)

Remaining objective: Keep it going

The White Sox might lose 100 games again, but they might not. Seems like damning with faint praise, but given where Chicago was earlier this season, much less a year ago, it seems like a minor miracle. The exciting part is that the younger the White Sox lineup has gotten, the better it has played. Colson Montgomery, Kyle Teel and Chase Meidroth have played key roles, and the White Sox are getting good results from other teams’ castoffs. The newest project is deadline pickup Curtis Mead, who generated so much excitement for the Rays in spring training.

The Colorado Rockies

The horror!

Win average: 44.3 (Last: 41.8, 30th)
In the playoffs: 0.0% (Last: 0.0%)
Champions: 0.0% (Last: 0.0%)

When will it end? Could be sooner than you think

First, it’s not a given that a team gets its own class in this Stock Watch edition. You’ve really got to set yourself apart. The White Sox did it last season, and the Rockies are doing it now. Colorado has picked up the pace, especially on offense, so it is no longer a certainty that the Rockies will dip below Chicago’s record-setting 2024 thud. And the one-year vibe shift in Chicago would be a source of encouragement as well. At the same time … the White Sox had a plan.

Continue Reading

Sports

Longhorns, Buckeyes top preseason coaches’ poll

Published

6 hours ago

on

August 5, 2025

By

Longhorns, Buckeyes top preseason coaches' poll
Aug 4, 2025, 12:55 PM ET

The coaches have weighed in on “who should start where” as the college football season opens, with Texas, Ohio State, Penn State, Georgia and Notre Dame filling the top five spots in the coaches’ preseason top 25 poll released Monday.

It likely will not stay that way for long, as the No. 1 Longhorns will visit the No. 2 Buckeyes in both teams’ season opener on Aug. 30 at Ohio Stadium.

It is the first time in the history of the coaches’ poll that Texas will open the season at No. 1. The Longhorns were picked to finish first by 28 of the 67 panelists, who are chosen by random draw from a pool of applicants to the American Football Coaches Association showing a willingness to participate.

Ohio State received 20 first-place votes, with Penn State (14), Georgia (3) and No. 6 Clemson (2) also being picked as the preseason No. 1.

Oregon, Alabama, LSU and Miami round out the top 10.

The Texas-Ohio State matchup headlines a massive first weekend of the college football season. In other games on Aug. 30, No. 6 Clemson hosts No. 9 LSU (7:30 p.m. ET, ABC) and No. 8 Alabama visits Florida State on Aug. 30 (3:30 p.m. ET, ABC).

On Aug. 31, the No. 10 Hurricanes face the No. 5 Fighting Irish (7:30 p.m. ET, ABC).

The SEC, with four teams ranked inside the top nine, leads all conference with nine teams in the poll: No. 13 South Carolina, No. 15 Ole Miss, No. 17 Florida, No. 18 Tennessee and No. 21 Texas A&M (tied) are also ranked.

The Big Ten placed six teams (No. 12 Illinois, No. 14 Michigan, No. 19 Indiana), while the Big 12 has five representatives (No. 11 Arizona State, No. 20 Kansas State, No. 21 Iowa State, No. 23 BYU and No. 24 Texas Tech).

No. 16 SMU was the only other team from the ACC to join Clemson and Miami.

The only Group of 5 team to be ranked to start the season is No. 25 Boise State.

The Associated Press will release its preseason rankings on Aug. 11.

Continue Reading

Sports

The 40 most important players in college football this season

Published

7 hours ago

on

August 5, 2025

By

The 40 most important players in college football this season

  • Bill ConnellyAug 5, 2025, 08:00 AM ET

    Close

      Bill Connelly is a writer for ESPN. He covers college football, soccer and tennis. He has been at ESPN since 2019.

According to ESPN BET, there are currently 21 teams with at least +10,000 odds (equivalent to about a 1% chance) of winning the national title in 2025. Thirteen of them are starting new quarterbacks, and seven of those are extremely inexperienced. Three other contenders are starting sophomores who, while experienced compared to others, are still sophomores.

Translation: The quarterback position, already the most important in any team sport, is going to be more important than ever this fall. Whichever of the 21 contenders has a particularly good one will have a massive opportunity on their hands.

Some of these new starters will shine — three of the past seven Heisman winners have been first-year starters, after all. But some will inevitably fall flat or, at least, start slowly. Some have given us tantalizing tastes of potential in small samples. Others will be taking their first meaningful snaps since high school. Some inherit offenses with known stars. Others will be navigating through life with new lines in front of them or new skill corps around them (or, in the case of the No. 1 guy on the list below, both).

It’s time for my annual most important players list. Below are 40 players who could define the season with either moments or long spells of greatness. Some play for contenders, while others play for the teams that might prevent contenders from reaching their goals. All of them will have a chance to make their mark on 2025. As I write in this piece every year, there are birds in hand, and there are unfinished products. This list is typically about the latter. It’s always quarterback-heavy because, well, quarterbacks are always important. But this year, we’re on quarterback overload.

New starting quarterbacks for likely contenders

1. Arch Manning, Texas: I usually count down to No. 1 in this piece in an attempt to build some sort of suspense, but there’s no point in making you wade through 39 other names first when you know who’s going to be No. 1. The top quarterback prospect in the 2023 recruiting class, Manning attempted 108 dropbacks while backing up or filling in for Quinn Ewers the past two seasons. And now he enters 2025 as the Heisman betting favorite (+600), leading a team that is the national title co-favorite (+550) and the likely preseason No. 1 team.

For two years, we’ve looked at 2025 as The Year Of Arch, and now we get to find out if he’s up for the challenge. If he is, then Texas could remain atop the rankings all season and, after two straight College Football Playoff semifinal defeats, make it a couple of wins further. But if he’s merely very good, the Longhorns’ rebuilt offensive and defensive lines and unproven receiving corps could become major obstacles. No pressure, dude.

2. Gunner Stockton, Georgia: The small-town Georgia product and former blue-chipper found himself in an impossible situation, making his first career start in the 2024 CFP quarterfinals last season against Notre Dame. He made some fabulous throws, suffered a devastating sack-and-strip fumble and couldn’t quite get the job done. Now he has gotten an entire offseason to prepare for start No. 2 and beyond. Georgia has the highest floor in the sport, but the Dawgs’ ceiling will be defined by Stockton and a receiving corps that didn’t do nearly enough for its QBs last season.

3. Ty Simpson, Alabama: The Bama defense gave up only 14.4 points per game in its final seven contests, but the Tide went just 4-3 in that span because the offense disappeared, reappeared, then vanished for good. With Ryan Grubb rejoining Kalen DeBoer as offensive coordinator and receiver Ryan Williams returning, it seems this is a great situation for a new QB. Can Simpson, a longtime backup, seize his opportunity and lead Bama through tricky early road trips to Florida State and Georgia? Or will he be supplanted by a youngster by midseason?

4. CJ Carr, Notre Dame: Notre Dame made the national title game last season despite an offense focused mainly on short passes and lots of third-down QB keepers. Riley Leonard was really good at those things, but Carr, a top-40 prospect in 2024, brings quite the old-school, pro-style skill set to the table. Can he boost the Irish’s upside enough to maybe actually win the national title game (while providing enough of a floor to get them back there)?

5. Dante Moore, Oregon: Moore took on too much too soon as a true freshman at UCLA in 2023, but after a year as Dillon Gabriel’s understudy, he’ll try to guide a massively overhauled Oregon offense well enough to keep the Ducks in the hunt for a second Big Ten title in two tries. I’m not sure about his upside, but a good run game and good decision-making from Moore will take Oregon a long way down the road.

6. Julian Sayin, Ohio State: He has completed five career passes, all in fourth-quarter garbage time, and now he likely takes the reins for the defending national champ and a team that has ranked worse than seventh in offensive SP+ just once in eight years. There’s massive pressure that comes with that, and at some point Sayin will have to make some big third-down passes. But he’ll be throwing to the best receiver duo in the sport (Jeremiah Smith and Carnell Tate). That will help.

Quarterbacks with a potential game-changing leap in them

7. Drew Allar, Penn State (No. 2 in 2023, No. 5 in 2024): Two years ago, this category featured the quarterbacks who would go on to win the national title (J.J. McCarthy), win the Heisman (Jayden Daniels) and lead a team to an unbeaten start before a devastating late-season injury (Jordan Travis). Last year it featured the guy who would make a game-changing leap all the way to the No. 1 pick in the NFL draft (Cam Ward). This category is a good place to find guys who will define the season.

It’s also a good place to find Drew Allar. He’s in here for the second straight season. In his first season with offensive coordinator Andy Kotelnicki, he took a clear step forward, from 2,631 passing yards to 3,327 and, more importantly, from 27th to 10th in Total QBR. His devastating pick late in PSU’s semifinal loss to Notre Dame has festered all offseason, but he’s clearly very good, and if he improves just a little bit more, his Nittany Lions might be just about bulletproof.

8. Cade Klubnik, Clemson: In six career games against top-10 opponents, Allar has completed 49% of his passes, averaged just 4.9 yards per dropback and 156.5 yards per game, produced a horribly mediocre 54.9 Total QBR and gone just 1-5. Klubnik hasn’t exactly thrived against that level of competition, but following his performance against Texas in last season’s CFP first round — 336 yards, 3 touchdowns and an 81.5 Total QBR — his hype has increased. He’s the No. 2 Heisman betting favorite (+800), and Clemson should start the season with its highest preseason poll ranking in at least three years. I’ve spent much of the offseason as a Clemson-as-contender skeptic, but if Klubnik torches LSU in Week 1, the table is set for a huge run.

9. Garrett Nussmeier, LSU (No. 7 in 2024): Klubnik vs. Nussmeier in Week 1 will be quite the market shifter when it comes to Heisman odds, and this game will give two teams with loads of upside and lots of question marks a chance to make a huge statement. LSU’s defense will probably determine its contention fate, but if Nussmeier, the No. 3 Heisman betting favorite (+900), takes a Jayden Daniels- or Joe Burrow-esque leap in his second year as a starter, the defense won’t have to make all that many stops.

10. Carson Beck, Miami: In two years as Georgia’s starter, Beck went 5-2 against top-10 opponents and produced a Total QBR over 92 on three occasions. Granted, he threw three picks twice as well (both times in 2024), but Georgia averaged a mammoth 36.6 points per game in those seven contests. He’s the most proven big-game player in the sport this season. But he also had a confusing run of poor play last season — 12 interceptions and 13 sacks in a six-game span — that damaged (or at least confused) perceptions. His final act will determine his legacy to a degree. Can he, with help from a theoretically improved defense, take Miami to its first CFP?

Young/inexperienced/new QBs with both spoiler and contender potential

11. LaNorris Sellers, South Carolina
12. DJ Lagway, Florida
13. John Mateer, Oklahoma
14. Marcel Reed, Texas A&M
15. Austin Simmons, Ole Miss

It was a jarring and repetitive theme in my SEC preview: “If [insert quarterback here] is awesome, [insert mid-level contender here] becomes a serious contender for a CFP bid.”

Granted, the paths for Florida and (especially) Oklahoma are trickier, and Lagway needs to be healthy before he can really threaten to upend this season. But any of these five QBs could lead playoff runs. Meanwhile, these five teams will play a combined 15 games against projected top-10 teams, per SP+, and 35 games against top-25 teams. If they don’t end up in the CFP hunt, they’ll have huge roles in determining who does.

These aren’t just five interesting quarterbacks — all five aspire to make plays, and that comes with risk.

• The national average for yards per completion last season was 12.1. All five of these QBs averaged at least 12.7, and Mateer (14.0 at Washington State), Simmons (14.8 in the smallest sample of the bunch) and Lagway (16.7) averaged far more.

• The national average for scramble rate (scrambles per dropback) was 6.6%. Lagway was at 7.2%, with Mateer at 11.1%, Sellers at 12.4% and Reed at 16.7%.

• The national average for air yards per pass was 8.6 yards downfield. Reed was at 9.3, Mateer 9.7, Lagway 10.6 and Simmons 11.3.

• Seeking out big plays comes with a sack risk. The national average for sacks per pressure was 17.8%. (Higher is worse in this case.) Simmons was at 25%, Sellers 25.6%, Mateer 28.4%.

• The national average for designed run rate (designed runs per snap) was 10.6%. Sellers was at 18.5%, Mateer 18.9%.

For that matter, Arch Manning had higher-than-normal numbers in terms of yards per completion, air yards, sacks per pressure and designed runs. These guys make huge plays and take hits. That will work out great for some and, perhaps, poorly for others. I can’t wait to see how this plays out.

Others: Joey Aguilar or Jake Merklinger, Tennessee; Beau Pribula or Sam Horn, Missouri; Bryce Underwood, Michigan

Potential stars in need of a breakthrough

16. Antonio Williams, Bryant Wesco Jr. or T.J. Moore, Clemson: Wesco had three 100-yard games and averaged 17.3 yards per catch as a freshman. Moore ended his freshman season by torching Texas for 116 yards in the CFP. Williams has almost 2,000 career receiving yards. They comprise the most impressive receiving corps Clemson has had in quite some time, but even with them, Cade Klubnik averaged only 11.8 yards per completion last season. The last eight national title quarterbacks averaged at least 13.6. (The last one who didn’t? Clemson’s Deshaun Watson at 11.8.) It’s really hard to nibble your way to the national championship, and Klubnik’s receivers need to come up big if the Tigers are going to deliver on what probably will be a very lofty preseason ranking.

17. Dani Dennis-Sutton, Penn State: OK, by most definitions, Dennis-Sutton is already a star. He made 15 tackles for loss with 8.5 sacks and 13 run stops last season. Few did better, but former teammate Abdul Carter was one of them. The new New York Giant was otherworldly last season, and his departure means 23.5 TFLs and 12 sacks need replacing. Can Dennis-Sutton raise his game just a bit more and make sure new coordinator Jim Knowles has elite disruption up front?

18. Harold Perkins Jr., LSU: Over the last seven games of his freshman season, Perkins hit a level we almost never see, recording 50 tackles, 11 tackles for loss, 6 sacks, 8 run stops, 2 forced fumbles and 2 pass breakups. In basically half a season. Just think of what he might be capable of when he knows what he’s doing. We’re still waiting to see what he’s capable of. He was good as a sophomore, then tore his ACL four games into the 2024 season. Now comes a golden opportunity. Perkins and Whit Weeks are both full strength, and Brian Kelly basically went out and grabbed every defensive end in the portal. It sure feels as if coordinator Blake Baker has the disruptors he needs. Can Perkins break through and lead the first genuinely awesome LSU defense since 2019?

Others: Dillon Bell (No. 12 in 2024) or Colbie Young, Georgia

Most important (non-QB) transfers

19. Makhi Hughes, Oregon: Hughes was just about the most proven and known quantity in the transfer portal. Over 28 games at Tulane, he touched the ball 553 times (523 rushes, 30 catches) and gained 3,022 yards with 24 touchdowns. He’s a fantastic yards-after-contact guy and has shown he can both grind out yards between the tackles and hit the afterburners when he finds space. If he can become the same type of go-to guy in the Big Ten, it will take immense pressure off Dante Moore and the rest of a completely revamped Oregon offense.

20. Zachariah Branch, Georgia: When Gunner Stockton was desperately trying to make plays against Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl, his supporting cast just didn’t support him enough. All season, in fact, it was clear offensive coordinator Mike Bobo couldn’t figure out around whom to build the offense. The returning receiving corps has decent experience, but Branch was a tantalizing but frustrating figure at USC. A former top-10 prospect, he’s a dynamic return man, but he managed only 823 total receiving yards at 10.6 per catch in two seasons. Can he give Stockton both a reliable set of hands and the occasional chunk play?

21. Dillon Thieneman, Oregon: The Oregon offense basically returns 1.5 starters. The defense is in slightly better shape — it returns three. But they’re all linebackers. The secondary lost all eight players who topped 80 snaps last season and will lean heavily on Thieneman and a pair of cornerback transfers to hold up. The good news? Thieneman is awesome. He was a third-team All-American as a freshman in 2023 and a steady playmaker (and play-preventer) for a dreadful Purdue defense in 2024. If he can lead a reliable secondary in the back, Oregon should have enough proven entities and former star recruits to survive up front.

Others: Nic Anderson, LSU; Malachi Fields and/or Will Pauling, Notre Dame; Will Heldt, Clemson; Elo Modozie, Georgia; Isaiah World and/or Emmanuel Pregnon, Oregon

Grizzled old spoiler quarterbacks

22. Diego Pavia, Vanderbilt: As far as final acts go, beating Alabama and leading Vandy to its first bowl win in 11 years would have been pretty spectacular. But Pavia sued to return for one final year of eligibility and won, and with a lot of the same players around him, he’ll try to make a few more memories. The Commodores get shots at Alabama, Texas, LSU, Tennessee and South Carolina, and though only one of those games is at home, Pavia & Co. probably will scare the hell out of someone in that group.

23. Haynes King, Georgia Tech (No. 21 in 2024): King’s Tech began 2024 by sending Florida State down its nightmare path, then finished it by KO’ing unbeaten Miami and nearly beating Georgia. King and running back Jamal Haynes can play the ball-control game as well as just about anyone, and they get home games against both Clemson and Georgia in 2025. OK, fine, the Georgia game is at Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta, and that only sort of counts. Still, that sounds semi-ominous.

Pure transcendence potential

24. Jeremiah Smith, Ohio State (No. 11 in 2024)
25. Caleb Downs, Ohio State

It was going to be almost impossible for Smith, a Hollywood, Florida, product, to live up to his recruiting hype. He did so almost immediately. He topped 80 receiving yards in 10 games and hit triple digits in five, including an all-time, 187-yard, two-touchdown performance against Oregon in the CFP quarterfinal (and his first Rose Bowl trip). Smith and Carnell Tate will give Julian Sayin the ultimate security blanket.

Meanwhile, though it was hard to be inspired by Ryan Day’s decision to replace outgoing defensive coordinator Jim Knowles with former Bill Belichick protege Matt Patricia — last truly strong performance as a coach: 2016; last year coaching in college: 2003 — Downs will give the Buckeyes basically a second coordinator on the field. He’s an almost perfect safety. He made 12 tackles at or near the line of scrimmage last season, delivered pressure on 31% of his pass rushes and gave up a 29% completion rate and 0.7 QBR when paired up in coverage. Ohio State faces a huge challenge, attempting to repeat as champ with a new starting QB and two new coordinators. But the Buckeyes could have the two best players in the sport. And that could be enough.

26. Peter Woods and/or T.J. Parker, Clemson: Nearly the perfect defensive line duo. Despite Woods sitting out three games, they combined for 24 tackles for loss, 23 run stops and 14 sacks last season, and they also welcome dynamic Purdue transfer Will Heldt to the party. But even with these two, the Tigers ranked just 29th in defensive SP+ last season. Most of the two-deep returns, and new defensive coordinator Tom Allen should provide a jolt of energy, but it might take a transcendent step from Parker or Woods for Clemson to make a title run.

27. Ryan Williams, Alabama: Jeremiah Smith had one of the best freshman seasons we’ve ever seen, but a different freshman might have made the best play of 2024.

play

1:02

Alabama answers right back with Ryan Williams’ 75-yard touchdown

Jalen Milroe heaves one to Ryan Williams, who goes 75 yards to restore Alabama’s lead.

Williams’ production trailed off after a torrid first five games, but it’s clear what he is capable of. If he channels Georgia energy for a larger portion of 2025, he’ll make the Tide awfully terrifying.

28. Leonard Moore and/or Christian Gray, Notre Dame: It was honestly incredible. Notre Dame lost all-world cornerback Benjamin Morrison to injury six games into 2024 and didn’t miss a single beat because Gray and Moore — then just a sophomore and freshman, respectively — were so damn good. They finished the season having combined for 5 interceptions, 19 pass breakups and 3 forced fumbles, and Gray’s spectacular interception of Drew Allar set up Notre Dame’s CFP semifinal win. Just imagine if even just one of these two hasn’t actually reached his ceiling.

Others: Anthony Hill Jr., Texas; Deontae Lawson, Alabama; Jeremiyah Love, Notre Dame; Colin Simmons, Texas; Nicholas Singleton and/or Kaytron Allen, Penn State; Dylan Stewart, South Carolina

Most important players in the ACC race

Though the list to this point has focused mostly on teams with the best national title odds, a 12-team playoff with five conference champion automatic bids assures that tons of teams actually have playoff shots. So let’s focus on the bids that won’t go to the SEC and Big Ten champs.

29. Kevin Jennings, SMU: Last season was supposed to be Preston Stone‘s moment, but Jennings won the quarterback job early in 2024, then proceeded to win nine straight starts and lead SMU to both the ACC championship game and the CFP. But mistakes — two early turnovers against Clemson, three picks (including two pick-sixes) against Penn State — ended the season in ignominious fashion. If Jennings rebounds and improves, SMU will again contend for a CFP spot. But wow, was that a crushing way to end 2024.

30. Rueben Bain Jr., Miami: After an incredible freshman debut in 2023, Bain was hurt just three snaps into 2024, sat out more than a month and flashed a true fifth gear only a few times while the Miami defense crumbled down the stretch. But as with Harold Perkins Jr., the potential here is obvious, and if he is all the way back up to speed and Miami’s transfer-heavy secondary holds up, the Canes could leave most league contenders in the dust.

31. Miller Moss, Louisville (No. 20 in 2024): Moss was on this list last year as he prepared to succeed Caleb Williams at USC. He started the season brilliantly in a win over LSU but finished it on the bench as the Trojans wound up 7-6. He wasn’t bad — he finished 26th in Total QBR — but a fresh start sure seemed like a decent idea. Jeff Brohm has a pretty good history with quarterbacks, and Moss will have one of the nation’s best RB duos (plus explosive receiver Chris Bell) in support. A big Moss season makes the Cardinals contenders.

32. Darian Mensah, Duke: Duke was a mini-Michigan last season, playing good enough defense to win nine games despite no run game and a passing game Manny Diaz disliked so much that he immediately went out and grabbed Mensah with what was believed to be a big-money deal. At Tulane in 2024, Mensah was excellent for a redshirt freshman; if he becomes simply excellent, period, why shouldn’t the Blue Devils be considered contenders? (Especially with a light conference schedule featuring only one projected top-40 ACC team?)

Others: Isaac Brown and/or Duke Watson, Louisville; Kyle Louis, Pittsburgh; Francis Mauigoa, Miami; Desmond Reid, Pittsburgh; Chandler Rivers, Duke

Most important players in the Big 12 race

33. Avery Johnson, Kansas State: The Wildcats don’t need a big-time, blue-chip quarterback to win a lot of games. Kansas State’s three straight nine- or 10-win seasons (and 2022 Big 12 title) are a testament to that. But it sure would feel like a waste if the Wildcats didn’t do something particularly impressive when they had a blue-chipper from their own backyard. Johnson, a top-100 prospect and product of Maize, Kansas, was fun if predictably mistake-prone in 2024, but if he phases out some of the errors and maximizes the big plays, K-State’s ceiling is higher than 10 wins.

34. Sam Leavitt, Arizona State: It was almost lost in the Cam Skattebo hysteria, but Leavitt was absolutely dynamite during ASU’s late-2024 hot streak. From November onward, he ranked second among all FBS starters in Total QBR, averaging 7.9 yards per dropback with a 16-to-2 TD-to-INT ratio (and scrambling beautifully) despite losing his go-to receiver, Jordyn Tyson, to injury. Having Skattebo next to him helped in obvious ways, but with a deeper receiving corps and a still-decent set of RBs, Leavitt could pilot an exciting Sun Devils offense and lead a second straight conference title charge.

35. Sawyer Robertson, Baylor: We’re going particularly quarterback-heavy in this section, but, well, this is a quarterback-heavy conference. And over the course of 2024, Robertson might have been the conference’s best. (He had the best Total QBR, at least.) He threw for 3,071 yards at an explosive 13.4 yards per completion, and he returns last season’s top two receivers, Josh Cameron and Ashtyn Hawkins. Baylor could have its best offense in a decade, which would give a work-in-progress defense quite a bit of margin for error.

36. Josh Hoover, TCU: Like TCU as a whole, Hoover spent much of 2024 looking great while under the radar. The Frogs won six of their last seven — they were probably the second-best team in the Big 12 after mid-October — and the quick-passing Hoover finished second in the conference in passing yards (3,949) and completion rate (66.5%), and first in yards per dropback (7.8). He’ll be working with a new receiving corps, but if he and TCU pick up where they left off, a conference title is within reach.

Others: David Bailey, Texas Tech; Rocco Becht, Iowa State; Devon Dampier, Utah; Spencer Fano, Utah; Behren Morton, Texas Tech; Jordyn Tyson, Arizona State

Most important Group of 5 players

37. Maddux Madsen, Boise State: Like Sam Leavitt, Madsen is going without training wheels this season. He no longer has the amazing Ashton Jeanty next to him, but he was still awfully good for a first-year starter in 2024. Madsen was fourth in Total QBR among Group of 5 QBs — second among those who threw more than 150 passes — and the Broncos were excellent on third downs, even when they had fallen off schedule. He’ll have experience all around him, and if he makes typical second-year-starter improvements, Boise State will be a runaway favorite to reach a second straight CFP.

38. Jake Retzlaff, Tulane: With both defending American Athletic champion Army and annual contender Memphis losing loads of production, Tulane has a massive opportunity to make a run in 2025, but it will require a quarterback. Jon Sumrall clearly knows this, as he brought in four QB transfers, and the latest might be the most vital.

play

1:13

How Jake Retzlaff ended up at Tulane

Pete Thamel gives the sequence of events that ended with former BYU QB Jake Retzlaff ending up at Tulane.

Retzlaff threw for 2,947 yards and 20 TDs as BYU surged up the Big 12 standings, and he’s now the biggest name in the Green Wave’s QB room. If he can get up to speed quickly, he’ll raise an already high ceiling in New Orleans.

39. Jayden Virgin-Morgan, Boise State: BSU must account for the loss of star pass rusher Ahmed Hassanein, but in Virgin-Morgan the Broncos might still have the best G5 defender in the country. He wasn’t quite as good as Hassanein against the run, but he has good size, and his 10 sacks as a sophomore (including 2.5 in two key wins over UNLV) were proof of massive potential. As with Madsen, a bit more development could make Boise nearly bullet-proof.

40. Alex Orji (No. 2 in 2024) or Anthony Colandrea, UNLV: The Rebels might be the single most fascinating team in the Group of 5. After winning 20 games in 2023 and ’24 (the same number they had won in the six years prior), they lost head coach Barry Odom and most of last season’s starters. That typically spells doom, but new head coach Dan Mullen has a fantastic résumé, and his transfer haul includes more blue-chippers than a lot of power-conference rosters can boast.

If either Orji or Colandrea thrive at quarterback, the Rebels could threaten Boise State. But Orji proved terribly one-dimensional in a failed audition at Michigan, and Colandrea was more confident than effective at Virginia. UNLV’s season could go in a lot of directions, but the ceiling is still high.

Others: Alonza Barnett III, James Madison; Walker Eget, San Jose State; Blake Horvath, Navy; Brendon Lewis, Memphis; Owen McCown, UTSA

Continue Reading

Trending