Connelly crowns the true CFB champion from 16 split or controversial titles
It’s one of the silliest features of maybe the silliest sport on the planet: If you were to add up all of the national championships claimed in top-level college football, you would think the sport dated back to the 1600s. Princeton claims 28 of them, Yale 27. Alabama claims 23 — including one from a 9-2 campaign in 1941! — and Notre Dame is credited with 22. That’s 100 right there! And 25 other schools claim at least five!
On one hand, so be it. Fielding a football team is hard, and fielding an elite team is even harder, and if you want to hang a banner for doing that (or some approximation of it), hang the damn banner.
On the other hand, this is kind of a mess. The BCS and College Football Playoff eras have cleaned things up a bit — we have had only one official split national title since the BCS began in 1998 — but the sport’s history is littered with unsettled arguments. So let’s settle some of them.
Below are 16 seasons featuring some of the sport’s biggest disagreements. They include all 11 of the split national titles of the poll era — when the AP selected one champion and the UPI/coaches poll selected another — plus five other particularly interesting arguments. To decide these titles, I will use key results and résumés, key averages, poll ratings and my historical SP+ ratings.
The banners can stay up, but let’s talk about who really deserved some rings.
Note: Scoring averages below do not take games against non-Division I (before the 1980s) or FCS opponents into account.
1947: Notre Dame (9-0) vs. Michigan (10-0)
AP poll rankings: Notre Dame first, Michigan second
SP+ rankings: Michigan first (31.8 rating), Notre Dame second (29.9)
Avg. points scored: Michigan 39.4, Notre Dame 32.3
Avg. points allowed: Michigan 5.3, Notre Dame 5.8
Best wins: Notre Dame def. Army (fourth in SP+) 27-7, def. USC (14th) 38-7; Michigan def. USC (14th) 49-0, def. Illinois (19th) 14-7.
Verdict: Michigan. Notre Dame and Michigan became fierce rivals late in the 20th century, but they didn’t play each other between 1943 and ’78, and depending on the apocryphal story you choose to believe, it’s possible that’s because Michigan’s Fritz Crisler haaaaaaated the Fighting Irish. It’s a shame, because if they’d played in 1947, it would have answered a lot of questions.
These two teams were easily the best in the nation that fall. Michigan manhandled a slightly weaker schedule by a larger margin, but as the late Beano Cook was happy to point out, the 1947 Irish might have been the most talented team in the sport’s history to date. Forty-one future pros suited up for head coach Frank Leahy, who rotated them in waves throughout a given game. This sometimes messed up the team’s rhythm, but it still never trailed and won nine games by an average of almost four touchdowns.
I’m giving the nod to the Wolverines, however. They defeated three common opponents (USC, Stanford and Northwestern) by an average score of 49-11, while Notre Dame averaged a 26-9 win. Talent or no, Notre Dame was dominant but not emphatic. Sorry, Beano.
1954: Ohio State (10-0) vs. UCLA (9-0) vs. Oklahoma (10-0)
Poll rankings: Ohio State first (AP) and second (coaches), UCLA first (coaches) and second (AP), Oklahoma third (AP and coaches)
SP+ rankings: Oklahoma second (27.4 rating), Ohio State third (23.1), UCLA 11th (19.2)
Avg. points scored: UCLA 37.5, Oklahoma 30.4, Ohio State 24.9
Avg. points allowed: UCLA 5.0, Oklahoma 6.2, Ohio State 7.5
Best wins: Ohio State def. Wisconsin (12th in SP+) 31-14, def. Iowa (13th) 20-14, def. California (18th) 21-13; UCLA def. Maryland (first) 12-7, def. USC (23rd) 34-0; Oklahoma def. Colorado (16th) 13-6, def. California (18th) 27-13
Verdict: Oklahoma. The early 1950s were a time of shifting power in college football. Both Notre Dame and Alabama were losing their way, and Oklahoma was only beginning its dominance. Teams like Maryland, Georgia Tech and UCLA briefly surged to the top of the totem pole, and with both travel and segregation limiting nonconference opportunities and the final polls being taken before bowls, quite a few teams reached the finish line unbeaten.
In 1954, Woody Hayes’ Ohio State and Red Sanders’ UCLA split shares of the title, while Bud Wilkinson’s Oklahoma, now 19 games into its famous 47-game winning streak, finished third in both polls. Because bowls didn’t take repeats in those days, neither UCLA (which had played in the Rose Bowl in 1953) nor OU (same with the Orange Bowl) got chances to bolster their résumés in the postseason, and between these three teams, only UCLA scored a win over an SP+ top-10 team. The Bruins otherwise trounced an extremely weak Pacific Coast Conference, however, and while Oklahoma had little competition in the Big 7, the Sooners graded out the best of the three in my opponent-adjusted SP+. So we’ll give them an ever-so-slight nod here.
1957: Auburn (10-0) vs. Ohio State (9-1)
Poll rankings: Auburn first (AP) and second (coaches), Ohio State first (coaches) and second (AP)
SP+ rankings: Ohio State fourth (23.0 rating), Auburn sixth (21.4)
Avg. points scored: Ohio State 26.7, Auburn 18.6
Avg. points allowed: Auburn 2.3, Ohio State 9.2
Best wins: Auburn def. Tennessee (10th in SP+) 7-0, def. Florida (15th) 13-0; Ohio State def. Wisconsin (eighth) 16-13, def. Iowa (ninth) 17-13
Losses: Ohio State def. by TCU (42nd) 18-14
Verdict: Auburn. Indeed, segregation limited both rosters and nonconference opportunities in the late 1950s. SEC teams primarily played only Southwest Conference teams and local independents and mid-majors, while integrated Big Ten teams had a bit more of a selection to choose from. They might as well have been playing for different national titles.
In 1957, Auburn played Chattanooga and middling Houston and Florida State teams in nonconference play; the Tigers were banned from the postseason for paying a couple of recruits, too, and head coach Shug Jordan had kicked likely starting quarterback Jimmy Cooke off the team before the season began. But they gave up only four touchdowns all season (one to Chattanooga!) and finished the season with a 40-0 pasting of Alabama. (The loss was humiliating enough for Bama to fire Jennings “Ears” Whitworth and pursue a replacement named Bear Bryant.)
Ohio State took on a more impressive schedule — Wisconsin and Iowa were both excellent, and the Buckeyes beat a decent Oregon in the Rose Bowl — but we’re going to give Auburn the ring here because the Buckeyes began the season with a stinker: TCU won 18-14 in Columbus in September, then proceeded to go just 4-4-1 the rest of the way.
1965: Alabama (9-1-1) vs. Michigan State (10-1)
Poll rankings: Alabama first (AP) and fourth (coaches), Michigan State first (coaches*) and second (AP)
SP+ rankings: Michigan State second (23.7 rating), Alabama fifth (20.1)
Avg. points scored: Michigan State 23.9, Alabama 23.3
Avg. points allowed: Michigan State 6.9, Alabama 9.7
Best wins: Alabama def. Nebraska (sixth in SP+) 39-28, def. LSU (14th) 31-7, def. Ole Miss (20th) 17-16; Michigan State def. Notre Dame (first) 12-3, def. UCLA (seventh) 13-3.
Losses/ties: Alabama tied Tennessee (eighth) 7-7 and def. by Georgia (26th) 18-17; Michigan State def. by UCLA (seventh) 14-12.
Verdict: Michigan State. Duffy Daugherty’s mid-1960s Spartan teams were absolutely loaded. In 1965, Michigan State boasted consensus All-Americans Bubba Smith and George Webster on a defense that never allowed more than 14 points, while the offense featured quarterback Steve Juday and a skill corps with two star backs (Clinton Jones and big Bob Apisa) and deep-threat receiver Gene Washington. The Spartans shut down an otherwise dominant Notre Dame team, and their only loss came in a dramatic last-second finish in the Rose Bowl against a UCLA team they had beaten to start the season.
Alabama was awesome, too. Quarterback Steve Sloan was prolific for his day, the defense held seven of 11 opponents to seven or fewer points, and the Tide outfought an excellent Nebraska in an Orange Bowl track meet. But they had two blemishes, and they lost to a pretty pedestrian Georgia. They sneaked from fourth to first in the AP poll at the end of the season thanks to bowl losses for both Michigan State and No. 2 Arkansas, but Michigan State still finished the season with the best résumé, and I don’t think it was particularly close.
* The final AP poll was administered after bowls for the first time, but the final coaches’ poll was still taken before them for a few more seasons. That produced some funky results.
1966: Notre Dame (9-0-1) vs. Michigan State (9-0-1) vs. Alabama (11-0)
Poll rankings: Notre Dame first (AP and coaches), Michigan State second (AP and coaches), Alabama third (AP and coaches)
SP+ rankings: Notre Dame first (29.2 rating), Michigan State second (24.7), Alabama third (24.5)
Avg. points scored: Notre Dame 36.2, Michigan State 29.3, Alabama 26.7
Avg. points allowed: Notre Dame 3.8, Alabama 4.4, Michigan State 9.9
Best wins: Notre Dame def. Purdue (sixth in SP+) 26-14, def. USC (10th) 51-0; Michigan State def. Purdue (sixth) 41-20, def. Michigan (35th) 20-7; Alabama def. Ole Miss (fifth) 17-7, def. Tennessee (13th) 11-10
Ties: Notre Dame tied Michigan State 10-10
Verdict: Notre Dame. It remains one of the most controversial end-of-season developments of all time. In one of the game’s great Games of the Century, top-ranked Notre Dame, playing a backup quarterback and looking at a long field ahead, kneeled out the final seconds of a 10-10 tie with No. 2 Michigan State, earning the ire of both the Spartans and famed Sports Illustrated columnist Dan Jenkins.
Head coach Ara Parseghian wagered that his Irish would keep their No. 1 ranking with a tie against such an awesome team, and he was right. They didn’t even have to split the title with the Spartans or unbeaten Alabama. Books have been written about this. Alabama fans of the day have never quite gotten over it. With overtime periods and better bowl pairings (and, yes, integration), something like this could never happen today. But it happened then.
Notre Dame was easily the best team of 1966, however. By far. It tied Michigan State in East Lansing with its backup quarterback, after all! Alabama was much improved over the team that sneaked away with the 1965 title, but the Tide would have been at least slight underdogs against either of the nation’s Midwest behemoths, and the Irish still stood out from the pack.
1969: Texas (11-0) vs. Penn State (11-0)
Poll rankings: Texas first (AP and coaches), Penn State second (AP and coaches)
SP+ rankings: Texas first (29.0 rating), Penn State third (24.5)
Avg. points scored: Texas 39.5, Penn State 29.3
Avg. points allowed: Penn State 8.2, Texas 10.8
Best wins: Texas def. Notre Dame (fourth in SP+) 21-17, def. Arkansas (ninth) 15-14; Penn State def. Missouri (12th) 10-3, def. West Virginia (29th) 20-0
Verdict: Texas. Almost nothing could have been as controversial as 1966, but “President puts thumb on national title scales” certainly competes. Both Texas and Arkansas were unbeaten in 1969 when Richard Nixon came to Fayetteville on Dec. 6 for a huge rivalry battle, another Game of the Century candidate that the Longhorns won with fourth-quarter heroics. In the locker room after the game, Nixon presented Texas with a national championship plaque, which was interesting considering (A) the Longhorns still had to face No. 9 Notre Dame in the Cotton Bowl and (B) Penn State was also unbeaten and dominant. PSU head coach Joe Paterno was not particularly impressed by the development.
The Horns indeed beat the Fighting Irish to secure No. 1 in both polls, and in retrospect it’s justified. Texas had played a tougher schedule and dominated it more than the Nittany Lions. After unveiling the Wishbone early in 1968, the Longhorns destroyed all comers with it that fall, extending their winning streak to 20 games and eventually inspiring both Alabama and Oklahoma, among others, to adopt it as well. They were the best team of 1969, even if Nixon’s appearance made things weirder than they needed to be.
1970: Nebraska (11-0-1) vs. Texas (10-1)
Poll rankings: Nebraska first (AP) and third (coaches), Texas first (coaches) and third (AP)
SP+ rankings: Texas first (25.2 rating), Nebraska sixth (21.3)
Avg. points scored: Texas 38.5, Nebraska 35.5
Avg. points allowed: Texas 13.5, Nebraska 15.8
Best wins: Nebraska def. LSU (seventh in SP+) 17-12, def. Colorado (21st in SP+) 29-13; Texas def. Arkansas (fourth) 42-7, def. UCLA (20th) 20-17
Losses/ties: Nebraska tied USC (13th) 21-21; Texas lost to Notre Dame (fifth) 24-11
Verdict: Notre Dame! Surprise! The Fighting Irish finished 10-1, lost only to USC late in the season and handled Texas pretty easily in the Cotton Bowl. They finished second in the AP poll behind Nebraska, which did tie the USC team that beat Notre Dame. But the Irish can match Nebraska’s best win thanks to a 3-0 win over LSU in November — Notre Dame playing LSU in November! Let’s bring that back! — and they ended Texas’ 30-game winning streak pretty easily in Dallas.
If we stick to choosing between only Nebraska and Texas, it’s tempting to still give the Longhorns the nod. They were by far the best team of the regular season (as evidenced by their absolute stomping of an otherwise awesome Arkansas), and because neither the Big Eight nor the SWC were particularly great that season, their résumés are pretty equal. But luckily we don’t have to choose between them — we’re going with that plucky upstart from South Bend instead.
1973: Notre Dame (11-0) vs. Alabama (11-1)
Poll rankings: Notre Dame first (AP) and fourth (coaches), Alabama first (coaches) and fourth (AP)
SP+ rankings: Alabama second (27.6 rating), Notre Dame sixth (21.4)
Avg. points scored: Alabama 39.8, Notre Dame 34.7
Avg. points allowed: Notre Dame 8.1, Alabama 9.4
Best wins: Alabama def. LSU (15th in SP+) 21-7, def. Georgia (22nd) 28-14; Notre Dame def. Alabama (second) 24-23, def. USC (17th) 23-14
Losses: Alabama def. by Notre Dame 24-23
Verdict: Notre Dame. I almost threw another curveball here by choosing 10-0-1 Oklahoma instead. The Sooners tied with top-ranked USC in Los Angeles early, then torched six ranked opponents on the way to an easy Big Eight title. They were first in SP+, and they finished the regular season second in the AP poll, ahead of No. 3 Notre Dame; if they hadn’t been banned from the postseason, they might have scored an easy enough Orange Bowl victory to finish No. 1 even though the Irish beat top-ranked Alabama in the Sugar Bowl.
They were banned from the postseason, however, and Notre Dame did upset Bama in the Sugar Bowl to finish unbeaten. It beat USC, too. Even with an otherwise unspectacular résumé, that’s enough to get the job done.
That was an epic Sugar Bowl, by the way the Fighting Irish and Crimson Tide met for the first time ever, and Bama was a solid favorite to secure the title and get belated revenge for the 1966 title controversy. Instead, Notre Dame matched it score for score, took a 24-23 lead on a late field goal and secured the upset when Tom Clements completed a huge third-down pass out of his end zone to backup tight end Robin Weber.
1974: Oklahoma (11-0) vs. USC (10-1-1)
Poll rankings: Oklahoma first (AP) and unranked (coaches), USC first (coaches) and second (AP)
SP+ rankings: Oklahoma first (32.4 rating), USC 13th (14.7)
Avg. points scored: Oklahoma 43.0, USC 30.3
Avg. points allowed: Oklahoma 8.4, USC 11.8
Best wins: Oklahoma def. Nebraska (third in SP+) 28-14, def. Texas (11th) 16-13; USC def. Ohio State (fourth) 18-17, def. Notre Dame (10th) 55-24
Losses/ties: USC def. by Arkansas (26th) 22-7 and tied California (52nd) 15-15
Verdict: Oklahoma. This one was split only because, beginning in 1974, the coaches’ poll both (A) began ranking teams after bowls and (B) stopped ranking teams on NCAA probation. Oklahoma, still under sanctions for what we’ll call persistently aggressive recruiting practices (and, in this case, the potential alteration of high school transcripts), was therefore not included, allowing a late-peaking USC team to snare the UPI title.
There should be no mistaking the fact that OU was the best team in the country, however. Only Texas stayed within 14 points of the Sooners, who rolled through seven Big Eight games by an average score of 42-9. With running back Joe Washington thriving in the Wishbone behind a line with multiple All-Americans, and with the Selmon brothers wrecking shop on defense, this was one of the greatest Sooner teams ever.
Meanwhile, USC fielded one of its weakest teams of the era. The Trojans might have been dangerous in a playoff scenario, though — they surged late in the season with a blowout of No. 5 Notre Dame and a Rose Bowl win over Ohio State. They peaked at the right time, but OU was still the best.
1978: Alabama (11-1) vs. USC (12-1)
Poll rankings: Alabama first (AP) and second (coaches), USC first (coaches) and second (Alabama)
SP+ rankings: Alabama second (20.0 rating), USC fourth (18.3)
Avg. points scored: Alabama 28.8, USC 24.5
Avg. points allowed: USC 11.8, Alabama 14.0
Best wins: Alabama def. Nebraska (third in SP+) 20-3, def. Penn State (fifth) 14-7, def. Missouri (14th) 38-20, def. Washington (15th) 20-17; USC def. Alabama (second) 24-14, def. Michigan (seventh) 17-10, def. Michigan State (10th) 30-9, def. Notre Dame (11th) 27-25, def. Washington (15th) 28-10
Losses: Alabama def. by USC 24-14; USC def. by Arizona State (21st) 20-7
Verdict: USC. The late 1970s were the peak of nonconference scheduling. Alabama played four SP+ top-15 teams in its non-con slate — including USC — and then played a fifth in a classic Sugar Bowl against Penn State. USC, meanwhile, played Alabama, Notre Dame and Michigan State and finished with a win over Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Neither team was incredibly dominant from a scoring-margins perspective, but how could you be against these schedules?
I’ve never been a huge “head-to-head matters above all else” guy — yes, USC beat Bama, but you could easily make a counterpoint that Bama had by far a better loss than USC’s to Arizona State — but with these teams both taking on brutal schedules and barely separating themselves in SP+, it’s pretty easy to use USC’s 24-14 victory in Tuscaloosa as a tiebreaker. That the win was pretty emphatic certainly helped. Bama’s Bear Bryant told the media, “It could have been worse,” afterward. USC broke Bama’s 12-game win streak by hanging 417 yards on the Tide (199 from star back Charles White) and dominating the line of scrimmage, and we’ll say that earned them the official national title here.
1990: Georgia Tech (11-0-1) vs. Colorado (11-1-1)
Poll rankings: Colorado first (AP) and second (coaches), Georgia Tech first (coaches) and second (AP)
SP+ rankings: Georgia Tech fourth (19.1 rating), Colorado seventh (17.6)
Avg. points scored: Georgia Tech 31.6, Colorado 30.7
Avg. points allowed: Georgia Tech 15.5, Colorado 17.6
Best wins: Colorado def. Oklahoma (sixth) 32-23, def. Notre Dame (eighth) 10-9, def. Nebraska (ninth) 27-12, def. Washington (11th) 20-14, Georgia Tech def. Clemson (third) 21-19, def. Virginia (fifth) 41-38, def. Nebraska (ninth) 45-21
Losses/ties: Colorado tied Tennessee (16th) 31-31 and lost to Illinois (31st) 23-22; Georgia Tech tied North Carolina (32nd) 13-13
Verdict: Georgia Tech. We got through the 1980s without any split titles, though you certainly could have made the case for Auburn or even Nebraska in 1983 (when Miami came out of nowhere to upset the Huskers and win the crown), and it seems some people will never quite get over BYU winning in 1984. Either way, the 1990s made up for lost time in the controversies department. We began the decade with back-to-back split titles, the first of which was shared by a pair of nontraditional powers.
On average, Miami and Florida State were almost certainly the two best teams in the country in 1990, but both suffered a pair of losses — Miami to BYU and Notre Dame, Florida State to Miami and Auburn — that eliminated them from contention. That left pollsters to decide between a Georgia Tech team with three excellent wins and a half-blemish and a Colorado team with four great wins and 1.5 blemishes.
There are no split titles here, however, and we’re going with Bobby Ross’ Yellow Jackets. The ACC was dynamite in 1990, and not only did Colorado suffer both a tie and a loss (neither to top-15 teams), but the Buffaloes also needed a fifth down to beat Missouri. (And even if their résumés were tied after that, this Mizzou guy is here to remind you that Charles Johnson didn’t score on fifth down, either. Sorry, Buffs. The Ramblin’ Wreck gets the ring.)
1991: Washington (12-0) vs. Miami (12-0)
Poll rankings: Miami first (AP) and second (coaches), Washington first (coaches) and second (AP)
SP+ rankings: Miami first (24.7 rating), Washington second (24.2)
Avg. points scored: Washington 41.3, Miami 32.2
Avg. points allowed: Miami 8.3, Washington 9.6
Best wins: Miami def. Florida State (third in SP+) 17-16, def. Penn State (fourth) 26-20, def. Nebraska (10th) 22-0; Washington def. Nebraska (10th) 36-21, def. California (13th) 24-17, def. Michigan (14th) 34-14
Verdict: Miami. Honestly? This might be the most difficult decision on this list. Both Don James’ Huskies and Dennis Erickson’s Hurricanes were nearly perfect, and it’s a damn shame that these two couldn’t meet in a bowl game.
Washington was perfectly suited to hold up against one of the best Miami teams of the era. The Huskies were explosive on the edge and beyond sturdy in the trenches. Mario Bailey (17 touchdowns, 16.7 yards per catch) was one of the scariest receivers of the 1990s, and the defense was keyed by All-American Steve Emtman up front and ball hawk Walter Bailey (seven INTs, two touchdowns) in the back. The Huskies began the season by handling Nebraska in Lincoln and ended it by pummeling Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Only an excellent Cal could stay particularly close in between.
Since I’m forcing myself to choose, however, I’m going with The U, if only because of the résumé. Miami beat both the third- and fourth-best teams in the country and finished the season by pummeling Nebraska by a slightly larger margin. This would have been an absolute coin-flip matchup on the field, but Miami’s schedule gives it the slightest of nods.
1993: Florida State (12-1) vs. Notre Dame (11-1)
Poll rankings: Florida State first (AP and coaches), Notre Dame second (AP and coaches)
SP+ rankings: Florida State first (24.0), Notre Dame second (23.3)
Avg. points scored: Florida State 41.2, Notre Dame 35.6
Avg. points allowed: Florida State 9.9, Notre Dame 17.9
Best wins: Florida State def. Nebraska (fourth in SP+) 18-16, def. Florida (fifth) 33-21; Notre Dame def. Florida State (first) 31-24, def. Michigan (ninth) 27-23, def. Texas A&M (12th) 24-21
Losses: Florida State def. by Notre Dame (second) 31-24, Notre Dame def. by Boston College (28th) 41-39
Verdict: Florida State. Going by the standards set in the 1978 discussion, Notre Dame should have the edge here: The Irish were nearly as good as FSU overall and scored the key head-to-head win in the teams’ epic mid-November battle.
This was an even more complete Notre Dame team than the one that won the 1988 national title, and while the Irish didn’t manhandle FSU by any means (yards per play: ND 5.2, FSU 5.0), they made an early 24-0 run hold up with a late defensive stand. These two teams were gearing up for a rematch in the Fiesta Bowl … until the Irish fell to Boston College in another classic the next week. This was a pretty solid BC team, but that loss, combined with FSU’s otherwise superior résumé — the Noles finished the season by beating excellent Florida and Nebraska teams — gives FSU the slightest of edges.
1994: Nebraska (13-0) vs. Penn State (12-0)
Poll rankings: Nebraska first (AP and coaches), Penn State second (AP and coaches)
SP+ rankings: Penn State first (23.6 rating), Nebraska third (21.3)
Avg. points scored: Penn State 47.0, Nebraska 35.3
Avg. points allowed: Nebraska 12.5, Penn State 21.0
Best wins: Nebraska def. Colorado (sixth in SP+) 24-7, def. Kansas State (13th) 17-6; Penn State def. Ohio State (ninth) 63-14, def. Michigan (10th) 31-24, def. Illinois (11th) 35-31
Verdict: Penn State. How do we gauge injuries here? Because although Brook Berringer became a legend by filling in at quarterback while star Tommie Frazier was dealing with blood clots, there’s no question that the Huskers were a less dominant team without No. 15. They manhandled Colorado in an enormous No. 2 vs. No. 3 game, but they were less than incredible against teams like Wyoming, Iowa State and a mediocre Oklahoma.
Penn State, on the other hand? Absurdly dominant. Even with a defense that had a propensity for leaking points in garbage time, the quartet of quarterback Kerry Collins, running back Ki-Jana Carter, receiver Bobby Engram and tight end Kyle Brady remains one of the best of all time. That Nebraska survived without Frazier and outlasted Miami in the Orange Bowl after Frazier’s return is obviously impressive. This team sealed the deal on an unbeaten season the way other awesome Tom Osborne teams could not. But Penn State humiliated Ohio State and averaged 47 points per game, and if you ask me who I think would have won head-to-head, I’m going with the Nittany Lions. (If Frazier were in 100% form, as he was in 1995, it’s a different story.)
1997: Nebraska (13-0) vs. Michigan (12-0)
Poll rankings: Michigan first (AP) and second (coaches), Nebraska first (coaches) and second (AP)
SP+ rankings: Nebraska second (22.9 rating), Michigan sixth (18.1)
Avg. points scored: Nebraska 46.7, Michigan 26.8
Avg. points allowed: Michigan 9.5, Nebraska 16.5
Best wins: Nebraska def. Washington (fifth in SP+) 27-14, def. Tennessee (eighth) 42-17, def. Kansas State (10th) 56-26; Michigan def. Ohio State (seventh) 20-14, def. Washington State (14th) 21-16
Verdict: Nebraska. We went against the Huskers in both 1990 and 1993, but they get the nod here, primarily because of offensive upside. Led by Heisman winner Charles Woodson, Michigan boasted the best defense in the country, and while Nebraska’s Blackshirts certainly had their moments (they held three Big 12 opponents to seven combined points and limited Peyton Manning’s Tennessee to 17 in the Orange Bowl), it still wasn’t quite up to the standard set by the 1994 and 1995 units.
Offensively, though? A major, major advantage to Nebraska. The Huskers topped 35 points 10 times in Osborne’s final season in charge. Quarterback Scott Frost made some huge passes, particularly in NU’s narrow Flea Kicker win over Missouri, and the option trio of Frost, I-back Ahman Green and fullback Joel Makovicka was as devastating as ever. Nebraska beat an excellent Washington in Seattle early in the season, beat ranked Kansas State and Texas A&M teams by a combined 110-41 and waylaid Manning and the Vols in the Orange Bowl. Michigan was definitively awesome, too, but left itself with less margin for error on offense. Nebraska would be favored in a hypothetical head-to-head and gets the ring.
2003: LSU (12-1) vs. USC (12-1)
Poll rankings: USC first (AP) and second (coaches), LSU first (coaches) and second (AP)
SP+ rankings: LSU second (23.4 rating), USC fourth (20.1)
Avg. points scored: USC 41.1, LSU 33.9
Avg. points allowed: LSU 11.0, USC 18.4
Best wins: LSU def. Oklahoma (first in SP+) 21-14, def. Georgia (sixth) 34-13, def. Arkansas (11th) 55-24; USC def. Michigan (ninth) 28-14, def. Auburn (20th) 23-0
Losses: LSU def. by Florida (21st) 19-7, USC def. by Cal (37th) 34-31
Verdict: LSU. Even in the BCS era, which promised us a No. 1 vs. No. 2 battle at the end of the season — a massive development in this sport — we ended up with title controversy at times. The BCS’ biggest issue wasn’t the formula; it was its inability to fit three deserving teams onto one title-game field. Having to stop at two teams was particularly controversial in 2000, 2003, 2004, 2008 and 2011, and it led to the creation of the CFP.
In 2003, Oklahoma was easily the best team of the regular season but hit the skids late in the season as quarterback Jason White’s injuries added up. The Sooners were pummeled by Kansas State in the Big 12 championship but still made the BCS Championship Game over USC. Nick Saban’s best LSU team handled the Sooners in New Orleans, while the Trojans were left to thump Michigan in the Rose Bowl.
It was obligatory that the BCS championship winner take the coaches’ poll crown, but defiant writers gave USC the nod in the AP poll. In the end, the Tigers were slightly more deserving. They had three wins over SP+ top-11 teams (USC had one), their scoring margin was slightly better against a better schedule, and their loss to Florida, though unimpressive, still looked better than USC falling to a Cal team that was still a year from an elite breakthrough.
-
Ryan S. Clark
LAS VEGAS — Just when it appeared that the Vegas Golden Knights finally found an opening in overtime, their chances of winning Game 2 were quickly shut down in controversial fashion.
It wasn’t that the Golden Knights were overlooking what it means to be in a 2-0 series hole following a 5-4 overtime loss Thursday to the Edmonton Oilers on Thursday in Game 2 of the Western Conference semifinals at T-Mobile Arena.
They were more concerned with what they saw, and what they didn’t see from referee Gord Dwyer just 17 seconds before Leon Draisaitl‘s game-winning goal gave the Oilers their first 2-0 series lead since 2017.
Vegas defenseman Brayden McNabb was going toward for the puck when Edmonton winger Viktor Arvidsson‘s stick got between McNabb’s legs, which sent McNabb into the boards. The play wasn’t ruled a penalty, and it led to the Oilers eventually going into transition before Draisaitl converted a 2-on-1 chance for the winner.
“It’s pretty clear it’s a penalty,” Golden Knights captain Mark Stone said. “His stick is between McNabb’s legs, and he sends him headfirst into the boards. It’s a pretty clear-cut penalty in my eyes and I think everybody’s eyes, right? But that’s hockey. You don’t always get the calls.”
Golden Knights coach Bruce Cassidy was a bit more direct about what he saw on the McNabb play.
“Listen, Gord’s looking at it. He blew it. He missed the call,” Cassidy said. “I don’t know what else to say. It’s a can-opener trip, it’s a dangerous play, it’s all those things. But it didn’t get called, so you’ve got to keep playing.”
Cassidy said he didn’t have an immediate update on McNabb’s status for Game 3 on Saturday in Edmonton. If he were to miss Game 3, it would leave the Golden Knights without one of their most important players.
McNabb, who was part of their Stanley Cup-winning team in 2023, is one of their top-pairing options and also a crucial piece of a penalty kill that had a significant role in how the Golden Knights survived so late in overtime.
An urgently aggressive Golden Knights team kept pushing to start the first period before forward Victor Olofsson opened with his first-ever playoff goal on the power play in the first period. Three consecutive goals from Oilers trio Jake Walman, Vasily Podkolzin and Darnell Nurse gave them a 3-1 lead. Golden Knights forward William Karlsson scored late in the second to cut it to 3-2.
Oilers forward Evander Kane doubled the lead to 4-2 within the first two minutes of the third before Olofsson’s second, also on the power play, less than three minutes later again cut the lead to a single goal. The Golden Knights forced overtime when alternate captain and star defenseman Alex Pietrangelo fired a shot from distance with 8:02 remaining in regulation.
Vegas had two chances in the final 30 seconds, only to have them both stopped by Edmonton goaltender Calvin Pickard, who finished with 28 saves, before heading to overtime.
Olofsson had a chance at a game-winning hat trick with a point-blank chance with 18:45 remaining before Nurse’s stick stopped him from having a clean shot.
“Definitely had a lot of good looks, and I think we could have had a couple more goals,” Olofsson said of a Golden Knights team that finished with 19 high-danger scoring chances.
Natural Stat Trick’s metrics show that Vegas’ shot-share in overtime was 66.7%. But even in a period in which they controlled possession, there was a moment when they nearly lost their grip.
Golden Knights forward Nicolas Roy received a five-minute major for cross-checking after his stick connected with Trent Frederic’s face. Roy appeared as if he was trying to play a puck in midair, only to then strike Frederic, which sent the Oilers on the power play.
The NHL’s No. 12 power-play unit in the regular season, the Oilers had a few chances on net but were either stopped by Golden Knights goaltender Adin Hill or had their chances broken up by an aggressive forecheck that allowed them to go through unscathed.
With a pair of power-play goals already, the Golden Knights believed they could have added a third once McNabb went into the boards.
Instead? They watched the Oilers regroup, Draisaitl get on a 2-on-1 and beat Hill for the win.
“This one will sting,” Cassidy said. “But the positives tomorrow will be good. I felt that we outplayed the Oilers for the most part and deserved a better fate. How the guys look at that? If they take it as, ‘We just gotta carry that over’ — we both said we wanted to get better as the series went on and we were certainly better than Game 1. So, we’ll improve on today if we want to get back into it.”
Going back to their first campaign in the 2017-18 season, the Golden Knights have made the playoffs in all but one year. Throughout that time, they’ve been in a 2-0 series hole once, against the Colorado Avalanche in a second-round series back in 2021.
The Golden Knights would come back to win that series with four consecutive victories.
“I liked our game today; we had a lot of good chances,” said Stone, who is one of nine players who remain from that team in 2021. “We put up four goals, and usually when you score four goals, you’re going to win a playoff game. Unfortunately, we didn’t. You can’t get down, you got to go to Edmonton tomorrow, get ready for Saturday night’s game and put your best foot forward and get a win.”
With two games in the books for three of four second-round series, trends have begun to emerge — some not so good for the teams that many picked to make long runs this postseason.
The defending Stanley Cup champion Florida Panthers are in a 2-0 hole, returning home to host the Toronto Maple Leafs for Game 3 (7 p.m. ET, TNT). In Friday’s nightcap, the Dallas Stars will look for another road victory over the Winnipeg Jets (9:30 p.m. ET, TNT).
Read on for game previews with statistical insights from ESPN Research, a recap of what went down in Thursday’s games and the three stars of Thursday from Arda Öcal.
Matchup notes
Toronto Maple Leafs at Florida Panthers
Game 3 | 7 p.m. ET | TNT
In their franchise history, the Maple Leafs have won 84% of their best-of-seven series when going up 2-0. The Panthers are 0-5 in best-of-seven series when trailing 0-2.
This series features the two highest-scoring lines at 5-on-5 this postseason: Eetu Luostarinen–Anton Lundell–Brad Marchand (eight) and Matthew Knies–Auston Matthews–Mitch Marner (seven, including the game-winning goal in Game 2).
William Nylander scored a goal for the third straight game, and he has six goals and 13 points this postseason. He is the second Maple Leaf of the past 30 years to score five goals in a three-game span — joining Alexander Mogilny from 2003 — and the first Maple Leaf since Doug Gilmour in 1993 to have 13 or more points in the first eight games of a postseason.
With a goal in Game 2, Marchand now has 32 postseason points against the Leafs in his career, which is fourth most all time. He trails Gordie Howe (53), Alex Delvecchio (35) and Henri Richard (33).
Stepping in for injured Anthony Stolarz, Joseph Woll saved 25 of 28 shots for Toronto. His counterpart, Sergei Bobrovsky, allowed four goals on 20 shots and has allowed nine total goals through Games 1 and 2. That is tied for the second most he has allowed in a two-game span in his playoff career.
Dallas Stars at Winnipeg Jets
Game 2 | 9:30 p.m. ET | TNT
After a win in Game 1, the Stars are now -360 favorites to win the series, while the Jets are +280, according to ESPN BET. The win for Dallas snapped an eight-game losing streak in Game 1s.
Mikko Rantanen provided all the offense that Dallas needed in the 3-2 win, scoring his second single-period hat trick in as many games. He set a record for the most consecutive team goal contributions (goal or assist) in Stanley Cup playoff history, with 12; the previous mark was nine by Mario Lemieux in 1992.
Game 1 was Jason Robertson‘s first game back after sustaining an injury in the final game of the regular season. He played 13:44, including 1:00 on the power play, and registered one shot.
The opening clash was also Mark Scheifele‘s return to the ice, though his absence was just since April 30 and Game 5 against the Blues in Round 1. Scheifele scored a goal and registered seven shots in 22:36 of ice time.
Winnipeg’s Connor Hellebuyck and Dallas’ Jake Oettinger are considered the two leading candidates to be Team USA’s goaltender at the 2026 Olympics. Oettinger took the first round of the head-to-head battle, saving 29 of 31 shots and getting the W; Hellebuyck saved 21 of 24 shots in defeat.
Öcal’s three stars from Thursday
Wilson was key in the Capitals tying up their series against the Canes. It was the first time he had a playoff game with at least two points, two hits, two blocked shots and three shots on goal.
Draisaitl scored the game winner in overtime as Edmonton takes a 2-0 series lead on Vegas. He joins Esa Tikkanen (from 1991) as the only players in franchise history with multiple OT goals in a single postseason.
Eichel registered three assists in the OT loss to Edmonton, and he now has eight points in his past five games (one goal, seven assists). That ties his own mark for most points in a five-game span in his postseason career.
Thursday’s recaps
Washington Capitals 3, Carolina Hurricanes 1
Series tied 1-1 | Game 3 Saturday
After a loss to the Canes in Game 1, the Capitals looked like a different team as veteran winger Tom Wilson “set the tone,” according to Alex Ovechkin. Connor McMichael started the scoring at 2:16 of the second period, and John Carlson put the Caps up 2-0 with a power-play goal near the start of the third on an assist by Wilson and Dylan Strome. Shayne Gostisbehere pulled Carolina within one with a power-play goal of his own, but Wilson finished them off with an empty-netter with a minute left. Full recap.
0:52
John Carlson buries Caps’ second goal of the night
John Carlson sends the Capitals fans into a frenzy after a beautiful goal early in the third period.
Edmonton Oilers 5, Vegas Golden Knights 4 (OT)
EDM leads 2-0 | Game 3 Saturday
Seeking a win to tie up the series, Vegas was on the board first with a goal from Victor Olofsson at 8:42 of the first period. Edmonton, however, charged back with three straight goals in the second period (from Jake Walman, Vasily Podkolzin and Darnell Nurse), before William Karlsson drew the Knights within one at 18:10. Evander Kane put the Oilers back up by two at 1:52 of the third, before Vegas rallied with goals by Olofsson and Alex Pietrangelo to send the game to OT. Leon Draisaitl tallied the game winner, giving the Oilers a 5-4 win and a 2-0 series lead heading home to Alberta. Full recap.
3:32
Oilers prevail in OT to take 2-0 series lead
Scott Van Pelt recaps the Oilers’ thrilling 5-4 overtime win over the Golden Knights to take a 2-0 series lead.
-
Billy Tucker
Whether through the transfer portal or a fresh wave of high school talent, college football teams across the country have replenished their rosters and even had a chance to evaluate some of their early enrollees during spring football.
Rosters are now mostly set and preseason camp is a few months away. It is a perfect time to project newcomers who could have the biggest impact on the 2025 season for each of the teams on Mark Schlabach’s Way-Too-Early Top 25 list.
Top newcomer: WR Trebor Pena (Transferred from Syracuse)
Why: While tight end Tyler Warren lined up everywhere and caught 104 passes for 1,223 yards last year, Penn State hasn’t had a dominant wide receiver since Jahan Dotson and didn’t have an impact option out wide in 2024. The Nittany Lions moved swiftly to overhaul the position, also adding Kyron Hudson (USC) and Devonte Ross (Troy), but Pena was the clear-cut top receiving threat in the spring portal. Pena has the skill set — and the mettle — to deliver in critical situations and be a go-to receiver for Drew Allar. Last season, Pena teamed with Kyle McCord at Syracuse to catch 84 passes for 941 yards and nine touchdowns.
What to expect: Look for Pena to become Allar’s consistent underneath checkdown target, particularly on key third-down conversions. Pena is versatile, reliable and slippery in tight quarters. Even if he doesn’t match his 84-catch pace at Penn State, which doesn’t pass nearly as often as Syracuse does, he should still replace some of the production and versatility void left behind by Warren. The sixth-year senior should catch on fast in Happy Valley despite missing spring practice. He’ll be the reliable slot who dominates zone coverage with savvy route running and sudden breaks to create separation. Don’t underestimate his quick impact in the return game as well.
Top newcomer: RB Gideon Davidson (No. 59 in the ESPN 300)
Why: The third-best running back in the 2025 ESPN 300, Davidson is a great example of how enrolling early can help springboard a freshman toward an immediate impact. Early signs are that he resembles Travis Etienne with his quick read and cut ability and could step in immediately to help replace 1,100-yard rusher Phil Mafah. Davidson was Virginia’s 2024 Gatorade Player of the Year and tallied more than 8,000 yards from scrimmage as a high schooler. His youth shouldn’t hold him back given Clemson’s otherwise inexperienced running back room.
What to expect: Davidson isn’t as big as Mafah, but he’s faster and will add a more explosive cutback element on zone runs. His great vision and speed should fit nicely into Clemson’s schemes. Clemson could utilize him quickly as a change-of-pace, all-purpose back if he’s not the featured back by the time the season opens. Clemson’s experienced passing game is the perfect antidote to take some pressure off the freshman.
Top newcomer: TE Jack Endries (Transferred from Cal)
Why: Don’t undervalue a trusted pass catcher at this position for a playoff contender with a new starting quarterback. Gunnar Helm was extremely productive in Steve Sarkisian’s offense last season with 60 catches for 786 receiving yards and seven scores. Endries is cut from the same cloth. He has soft hands with explosive potential after the catch, deceptive speed and elusiveness. Endries might not be quite as athletic as Helm, but he’s agile with good body control and runs very efficient routes to get open and catch the football. He led Cal in both catches (56) and yards (623) last season.
What to expect: Endries’ production may actually drop a bit at Texas, but he’ll play a vital role for a national championship contender and offer quarterback Arch Manning a much-needed safety valve. Endries is an every-down presence who can do whatever an offense requires. He uses his strong body to rub off defenders and create separation on crossing routes. Endries will prove to be a productive blocker and pass catcher in a fairly inexperienced tight ends room. Although Endries didn’t get the benefit of jelling with Manning in spring ball, he has a high IQ for both his position and the overall game. He played in multiple offensive schemes at Cal and should make a smooth transition in Austin.
Top newcomer: WR Zachariah Branch (Transferred from USC)
Why: While Talyn Taylor will have an impactful season as a true freshman, Branch has experience. He has been one of college football’s truly dynamic talents with the ball in his hands. He arrived in college with 4.39 40-yard dash speed and became an instant playmaker for the Trojans in the return game. He was the program’s first-ever freshman to be named a first-team All-American. After his production stagnated as a sophomore, he hopped in the portal. His playmaking ability is a welcomed addition for a Georgia offense that was anything but surehanded at wide receiver in 2024, leading all FBS programs with 36 receiver drops, according to ESPN Research. Branch should take some of the pressure off new Bulldogs quarterback Gunner Stockton.
What to expect: Branch could have the best season of his career in Athens and help the Dawgs offense become more consistent than a year ago. He’s the ultimate underneath checkdown and safety valve who can create separation with his suddenness and will complement Georgia’s bigger outside targets, such as Texas A&M transfer Noah Thomas, to create mismatches. He’s explosive with the ball in his hands after the catch as well. Without great returning running back production, expect offensive coordinator Mike Bobo to feature Branch creatively on screens, jet sweeps, quick slants and crossers to maximize his ability after the catch in space, He should become a go-to third-down option for Stockton.
Top newcomer: TE Max Klare (Transferred from Purdue)
Why: The Buckeyes will introduce a group of new starters on offense this season including quarterback Julian Sayin. What’s the best weapon for a new quarterback? How about an elite pass-catching tight end with excellent hands and polished route-running skills who won’t receive a lot of defensive attention? Despite Purdue’s anemic offense, Klare managed an impressive 51 catches for 685 yards last season and the Boilermakers utilized him to create mismatches in the passing game through multiple sets and formations. At 6-foot-4, Klare moves well and adjusts to difficult throws while also creating separation as a route runner. He’s a great runner who gets up the seam quickly as a downfield threat.
What to expect: Klare is a versatile big-play target who will double his touchdowns and increase his yards per catch in the Buckeyes’ offense, but his volume might go down. Defenses will focus so much on defending wide receivers Jeremiah Smith and Carnell Tate that Klare will be left to cash in on opportunities underneath. Look for coach Ryan Day to get creative with his new playmaker to create mismatches on less athletic linebackers in single coverage and rack up record-breaking offensive numbers.
Top newcomer: Edge Patrick Payton (Transferred from Florida State)
Why: Will Campbell became an instant starter at LSU and just went fourth overall to the Patriots. So, it’s easy to look at incoming five-star offensive tackle Solomon Thomas as a natural successor. But LSU’s most impactful newcomer will be someone who gets after quarterbacks, not protects them. Payton should be plenty motivated to make an immediate impact. He notched seven sacks in 2023 alongside future pros Jared Verse and Braden Fiske, but his production went backward in a leading role. Once viewed as a potential high draft pick, the clock’s ticking for Payton to prove he can be the leading man in his final year of eligibility. The Tigers need it after losing top edge rushers Bradyn Swinson and Sai’vion Jones, who combined for 13 sacks in 2024.
What to expect: Double-digit sacks. Payton has a better supporting cast around him and a scheme to get back to form. What does that mean for SEC foes? A Day 1 NFL draft talent screaming off the edge. He’s lengthy, fluid and explosive and can bend the corner and close on quarterbacks when he’s on his game and motivated. Consistency is the issue, but Payton has a fresh start and eyes on the NFL prize. He has a dynamic skill set, as he can drop in coverage and chase plays down in space, but his speed and length will be utilized best as a pass-rush specialist.
Top newcomer: WR Malachi Fields (Transferred from Virginia)
Why: With Steve Angeli‘s transfer to Syracuse, all signs point to coach Marcus Freeman handing his offense over to redshirt freshman CJ Carr — a big ask for an unproven, young quarterback in a program that reached the national title game last year. Adding a player like Fields will take some pressure off Carr. Fields is a massive target and contested-catch specialist at 6-foot-4, 220 pounds who was plenty effective at Virginia despite topsy-turvy quarterback play. He finished eighth in the ACC with 808 receiving yards on 55 catches, nearly mirroring his 2023 production. Fields was also a team captain at Virginia and is well-equipped to step into the spotlight for the Fighting Irish in his final year of eligibility.
What to expect: More explosive downfield plays in South Bend. Freeman has been selective in the transfer portal, but there are big plans for Fields in 2025. He should break out and actually surpass his production at Virginia given his superior surrounding cast at Notre Dame. Fields is an immediate upgrade over Notre Dame’s returning receivers, as well as the departing duo of Jayden Thomas (Transferred to Virginia) and Beaux Collins (New York Giants). Fields is a proven receiver with all the physical attributes to help Carr acclimate quickly as a rookie quarterback, serving as a big-bodied, athletic target on the outside. Fields is arguably a sharper route runner and a more durable, consistent outside threat than Collins, who averaged 12 yards per catch last year.
Top newcomer: WR Dakorien Moore (No. 4 in the ESPN 300)
Why: In the transfer portal era, it’s harder than ever for freshmen to make an immediate impact. But this isn’t your typical freshman. Moore is the highest-graded receiver ESPN has evaluated since 2020. His 93 grade tops recent five-stars such as Ryan Williams and Jeremiah Smith in 2024, Zachariah Branch in 2023 and Luther Burden III in 2022. The 2025 Under Armour All-American game MVP, Moore notched more than 4,000 receiving yards in a battle-tested environment at Duncanville (Texas) High School, where he ran a scorching 10.4 100-meter dash and anchored the school’s 4×200 relay team that set a national record last spring with a time of 1:22.25. New Ducks starting quarterback Dante Moore will benefit from a blazing underneath weapon who is a menace after the catch.
What to expect: Moore will be a starter by midseason — he’s simply too talented to keep off the field. He’s a bigger, faster version of Tez Johnson, who led Oregon in receiving last season and was drafted in the seventh round by the Buccaneers. Moore’s dynamic skills should allow the Ducks to move veteran playmaker Evan Stewart around more within the offense. Moore is confident, competitive and smart. Being on campus this spring was extremely beneficial for his acclimation to high-level college football. Moore checks all the boxes physically, and Oregon knows it can use him in a variety of ways.
Top newcomer: WR Lotzeir Brooks (No. 102 in the ESPN 300)
Why: Alabama wasn’t particularly aggressive in the transfer portal, so there could be an opportunity for a freshman from its fourth-ranked recruiting class to emerge. The 5-9, 180-pound Brooks is the most decorated high school receiver to come out of New Jersey, setting the state record for receiving yards (4,615) and touchdowns (67). He arrived in Tuscaloosa early and turned heads in Alabama’s spring practices as a slot receiver.
What to expect: Playing alongside sophomore Ryan Williams, Brooks could emerge as a contributor in Kalen DeBoer’s offense as the season progresses. He’s small but dynamic and very quick and sudden in his movements. Brooks creates separation as a route runner, especially underneath. He’s a chain-mover after the catch with great burst and acceleration, and he sees the field well. Brooks could show off those attributes early on as a punt returner as well.
Top newcomer: DT Keanu Tanuvasa (Transferred from Utah)
Why: BYU ranked 13th in FBS team defense last year, and its opportunistic secondary led the Big 12 with 22 interceptions. But its defensive front, which wasn’t overly disruptive, lost four starters, and the Cougars didn’t have any players drafted. If Tanuvasa stays healthy and plays up to his potential, both of those things will change in the near future. Tanuvasa started 19 of 24 games for the Utes and was an All-Big 12 honorable mention last year despite playing in only seven games because of injuries. The 6-4, 301-pounder has two years of eligibility remaining, but it won’t be a surprise if he garners early-round draft consideration should he play a full season. Until then, he’ll be the type of interior defensive presence Kalani Sitake loves to build around.
What to expect: His stats won’t jump off the page, but he will require double-teams and full attention from opposing offenses, freeing up the Cougars’ pass rushers off the edge. If teams try to single-block Tanuvasa, expect pockets to collapse quickly because of his quickness, power and high motor. His stout presence will eat up blocks and free talented linebackers Isaiah Glasker and Jack Kelly to make plays behind the line of scrimmage versus the run. The void up front left by Tyler Batty & Co. won’t be noticeable because of Tanuvasa’s production and leadership.
Top newcomer: WR Hudson Clement (Transferred from West Virginia)
Why: The Illini have desirable continuity at quarterback with Luke Altmyer returning for his third season. Now, they need to surround him with playmaking and experience, especially considering their lack of chunk plays in 2024. So while true freshman receiver Brayden Trimble is someone to watch, Clement has college experience. A former West Virginia walk-on, Clement started 19 games over the past two seasons, including 12 last year, when he set career highs in receptions (51) and yards (741). Pat Bryant and Zakhari Franklin combined for 51% of Illinois’ receptions last season. Both have moved on, meaning there’s a ton of opportunity for Clement to quickly get up to speed and become Altmyer’s new favorite target.
What to expect: Clement will end the season as Illinois’ most productive receiver and the top target for Altmyer. His upside is extremely high and he’s an experienced Power 4 veteran. Clement showed flashes this spring and has a mix of Bryant’s and Franklin’s traits. The 6-foot-1, 205 pounder has a nice frame and a savvy feel for navigating zone coverage and finding the soft spots in the second and third levels of the defense. Clement is a very reliable downfield target with excellent hands and body control. His leadership experience in the wide receiver room will be just as important as his play on the field.
Top newcomer: RB Kanye Udoh (Transferred from Army)
Why: Following Cam Skattebo will require a certain kind of mental toughness, which is exactly what Udoh brings after spending two years at Army. It’s unfair to assume any player can replace Skattebo, who had over 2,300 combined yards last year for a College Football Playoff contender and made an outsized off-the-field impact on the program as well before departing for the NFL. Udoh was used immediately at Army, running for 524 yards as a freshman, then followed it up with a 1,117-yard campaign last year with 10 touchdowns on 6.2 yards per touch.
What to expect: The continuation of a ground-and-pound offense. Udoh will fill the production void left by Skattebo with a similar physical presence that wears down a defense, eats the clock and makes him a fan favorite like his predecessor. Udoh actually has better acceleration out of his cuts and top-end speed than Skattebo. If he falls short on production, Kyson Brown and Raleek Brown will help pick up the slack for one of the best backfields in the Big 12.
Top newcomer: C Boaz Stanley (Transferred from Troy)
Why: The Gamecocks have the talent to break through and reach the College Football Playoff for the first time, and dual-threat quarterback LaNorris Sellers has a very real chance to become the first quarterback drafted following the 2025 season. But those expectations could come crashing down if South Carolina can’t solidify its foundation from the inside out, which is no sure thing considering the Gamecocks must replace their entire interior starting line from last season. Stanley should be a steadying presence at center. The 6-foot-4, 310-pound Troy transfer arrives with plenty of starting experience, the versatility to kick out to tackle in a pinch and a technically sound play style — he didn’t commit any penalties in 2024.
What to expect: Stanley will be the catalyst behind an explosive South Carolina offense that exceeds expectations. He will keep Sellers upright and open holes for transfer running back Rahsul Faison, who could challenge Stanley as the top newcomer in Columbia. Stanley has a powerful lower body and excellent base to anchor in pass protection and drive blockers off the ball on downhill run schemes. South Carolina will covet his versatility to play either on the interior or outside at tackle. While his physicality and leverage will draw rave reviews, his leadership qualities at the key center position and finishing attitude will make Gamecocks teammates better around him.
Top newcomer: WR Chase Sowell (Transferred from East Carolina)
Why: Sowell has big shoes to fill in Ames. Iowa State is coming off the most wins in program history (11), and the Houston Texans just drafted a pair of Cyclones receivers, Jayden Higgins and Jaylin Noel, in the second and third rounds, respectively. Higgins and Noel combined for just over 60% of Iowa State’s receptions a year ago. The 6-foot-4 Sowell arrives with big-play ability after averaging 19.9 yards per reception last year over nine games for East Carolina. Sowell began his career at Colorado but was limited by injuries as a freshman before he transferred. He’ll need to prove he can stay healthy, but Sowell has the talent to become a quick favorite of quarterback Rocco Becht and rack up chunk plays for Iowa State.
What to expect: Sowell and Xavier Townsend will step in and replace most of the void left by Higgins and Noel. Sowell is long, smooth for his size and can really run vertically. He isn’t quite as strong as his predecessors, but he’s more fluid and elusive. He’s an easy mover like Higgins and can execute on all three levels of the Iowa State passing offense. Matt Campbell is one the best in the country at finding and developing scheme fits. Sowell is already developed and definitely fits the Cyclones’ system.
Top newcomer: WR Link Rhodes (Transferred from San Joaquin Delta College)
Why: Rhodes wasn’t a highly ranked recruit out of Sunrise Mountain High School in Las Vegas, but the 6-foot-2, 200-pound receiver ranked No. 23 on ESPN’s junior college rankings after breaking out for 607 yards on 46 catches last year at San Joaquin Delta College, where he also won a California Community College Athletic Association state track championship by running a 10.59 100-meter dash for the school’s track team. There’s plenty of opportunity for Rhodes to jell quickly with quarterback Kevin Jennings considering SMU’s three leading receivers from last season are all gone.
What to expect: Rhodes wasn’t on campus this spring, but it’s going to be hard to keep his rare blend of size and speed off the field. SMU’s supporting cast around him lacks firepower, which is why Rhodes can become the immediate go-to threat, with freshman ESPN 300 wide receiver Daylon Singleton a close second. While it’s a significant jump in competition from junior college to the ACC, Rhodes has the explosiveness and good ball skills to be a playmaker both underneath with yards after the catch as well as a downfield target. He also has great skills in the return game.
Top newcomer: Edge David Bailey (Transferred from Stanford)
Why: Bailey is the jewel of one of the nation’s most impressive transfer classes. The edge defender entered the portal after Stanford fired Troy Taylor in late March and had no shortage of suitors, ranking as the second-best prospect available this spring. The former four-star California native was a disruptive presence almost as soon as he stepped foot on campus in Stanford. He tallied 14.5 career sacks, including seven in 2024, as well as 22.5 career tackles for loss.
What to expect: One of the best front sevens in college football. The Red Raiders made a handful of notable additions, including bringing in another edge rusher in Romello Height (Georgia Tech), but Bailey is a cut above. He’s not the biggest at 6-foot-3, 250 pounds, but he’s plenty fast and explosive. He is similar to Abdul Carter, the No. 3 pick in this year’s NFL draft. Bailey is a strong, tightly wound burst of speed and power off the edge and can really do it as an every-down defender. He’s a stout and disruptive early-down run defender, and his ability to come off the corner to close on quarterbacks is as good as anyone in college football.
Top newcomer: QB Fernando Mendoza (Transferred from Cal)
Why: Mendoza is one of the most significant additions across the country after ranking fifth in ESPN’s transfer rankings. He arrives in Bloomington with much more fanfare than Kurtis Rourke a year ago, but he’ll have a high bar to clear. Rourke threw for 3,042 yards and 29 touchdowns to just five interceptions after transferring from Ohio, and guided Indiana to an unexpected playoff appearance. Mendoza must now acclimate to Curt Cignetti’s offense and help the Hoosiers navigate the Big Ten with a much bigger target on their back.
What to expect: Mendoza should surpass Rourke’s production and make Indiana a serious contender again. Originally committed to Yale before landing at Cal, Mendoza has the football aptitude to thrive in this situation. He was quietly one of the ACC’s better quarterbacks last year, completing nearly 69% of his passes with a 16-to-6 touchdown-to-interception ratio. He will have much better protection up front than he had at Cal and more explosive weapons at his disposal. When given time, he can make all the throws and is arguably more accurate with a quicker release than Rourke. Mendoza has great zip on the ball but isn’t all flash. He will keep his eyes downfield, take a hit when needed and is ultracompetitive. He should flourish in this Hoosiers offense and become a potential first-round pick.
Top newcomer: WR Jaron Tibbs (Transferred from Purdue)
Why: Kansas State hit the portal hard to reshape its receiver room and capitalize on its window with dynamic dual-threat quarterback Avery Johnson. Tibbs’ production last season of 25 catches for 305 yards and two touchdowns doesn’t stand out, but he actually led Purdue’s offense in receptions by a wideout. At 6-foot-3, 210 pounds, Tibbs brings great size and an intriguing multisport background. He’s the all-time leading receiver at Indiana’s Cathedral High School — the alma mater of Commanders receiver Terry McLaurin — with 2,479 yards and was also a dynamic basketball player.
What to expect: Tibbs will compete for a significant share of targets early on. He had an impressive spring showing in which his polished skill set helped him gel nicely with Johnson. He has a big frame to win positioning on contested balls and strong hands with a large catch radius. Tibbs is not an explosive chain-mover with the ball in his hands, but he’s a very reliable outside target who can work the middle of the field and become that big conversion target for Johnson. Kansas State returns leading receiver Jayce Brown, but Tibbs and fellow transfers Jerand Bradley (Boston College) and Caleb Medford (TCU) will round out the revamped passing attack.
Top newcomer: WR Dallas Wilson (No. 43 in the ESPN 300)
Why: Florida’s first order of business is getting quarterback DJ Lagway healthy after he missed time this spring with a shoulder ailment. Next? Identifying the right weapons to put around its star quarterback. The Gators brought in several new pass catchers, including potential breakouts in freshman Vernell Brown III and transfer J. Michael Sturdivant, but Wilson has a chance to emerge as the biggest hit of them all. The 6-foot-4 Tampa native nearly made it to Oregon before requesting a release to return home to Florida.
What to expect: Big production from the true freshman. Wilson amassed nearly 2,500 receiving yards as a high schooler and didn’t wait long to make a resounding first impression, catching 10 passes for 195 yards and two scores in Florida’s spring game with Louisville transfer quarterback Harrison Bailey at the helm. He’s a matchup nightmare with his size and speed combination and he’s ahead of the curve in regard to the understanding of route concepts. He has impressive speed with a 6-foot-4, 190-pound frame, running in the 4.5s in high school. Wilson will team up with Brown, who was slotted one step ahead of him in the ESPN 300 wide receiver rankings, along with Sturdivant to turn an offseason weakness into a strength.
Top newcomer: Bryce Underwood (No. 1 in the ESPN 300)
Why: After taking a massive step back at quarterback in 2024 following J.J. McCarthy’s departure for the NFL, Michigan went all-in on the NIL front to flip Underwood from LSU. He arrives in Ann Arbor as the school’s most anticipated quarterback recruit since at least Drew Henson — if not ever — and is only the fourth five-star to end up at Michigan since 2006, per ESPN’s rankings. Underwood was a two-time Gatorade Player of the Year winner in Michigan and won 50 games as a high schooler, totaling nearly 13,000 all-purpose yards and 179 touchdowns. Michigan desperately needs quarterback help after producing the No. 131 passing offense in 2024.
What to expect: Sherrone Moore brought in Fresno State transfer Mikey Keene, but Underwood is clearly the long-term answer at quarterback, and he should win the job this season and improve steadily as it progresses. The 6-foot-4, 208-pounder has exceptional arm talent to attack the intermediate and deep passing levels with enough mobility to extend plays and keep defenses honest. He’s great when making off-platform throws with instincts and an overall game that reminds us of Trevor Lawrence. Underwood didn’t light up spring ball, but he was solid in his first taste of college, especially considering he handled the workload with Keene sidelined because of injury. There will be growing pains, but Underwood should only get better with more time, especially if he can rely on a strong supporting cast while settling in early.
Top newcomer: CB Xavier Lucas (Transferred from Wisconsin)
Why: While QB Carson Beck is the biggest name, he was also limited in spring practice as he returns from elbow surgery. Lucas, meanwhile, could emerge as a true No. 1 corner across from breakout freshman OJ Frederique Jr. and create a much-improved tandem on the boundaries for a Hurricanes secondary that struggled in 2024. A Florida native, Lucas made 18 tackles, an interception and a sack over 203 snaps as a freshman at Wisconsin. His arrival in Coral Gables caused a stir after he transferred to Miami despite Wisconsin refusing to enter his name in the portal, but he enrolled this spring and quickly made a strong impression on Miami’s coaching staff.
What to expect: Lucas will be the leader of a revamped secondary and make plays throughout the backend and perimeter. The Hurricanes brought in five transfers who could push for playing time, but Lucas has the best ceiling, scheme versatility and overall skill set. He has a supreme blend of size, length and recovery burst as a shutdown corner. He will also use that size at 6-foot-2, 198 pounds to set edge on run support. He has the physical makeup to be an all-conference-type safety as well. Lucas also has a high football IQ when it comes to reading route concepts and playing with awareness. This will allow the Canes to deploy him at both the boundary and field corner position, which adds extreme value.
Top newcomer: QB Miller Moss (Transferred from USC)
Why: In adding Moss, Jeff Brohm is hoping to go 3-for-3 unlocking transfer quarterbacks following the success of Tyler Shough and Jack Plummer. Ironically, Moss lit up Louisville in his first career start, throwing for 372 yards and six touchdowns in the 2023 Holiday Bowl after previously backing up Caleb Williams at USC. Moss won the Trojans’ starting job in 2024 and was steady albeit unspectacular, throwing for 2,555 yards and 18 touchdowns to nine interceptions over nine games with a 64.4% completion rate before losing the starting job. Moss walks into a favorable situation. Louisville has spent parts of each of the past two seasons ranked among college football’s top 25 and returns a strong supporting cast, including wide receiver Caullin Lacy and breakout freshman running back Isaac Brown.
What to expect: Brohm should bring out the best in the former high school All-American who has struggled to take his game to the next level. Moss is smart and battle-tested, making him an ideal candidate for this pro-style offense. Louisville will rely on him to make smart decisions distributing the football to a host of weapons. He has an opportunity to put up big numbers in Brohm’s passing attack, which pushes the ball vertically, but he won’t bear all the pressure thanks to a formidable rushing attacking to complement the passing game. Moss should have better overall balance than he had at USC.
Top newcomer: WR KC Concepcion (Transferred from NC State)
Why: On the surface, the pairing of Concepcion and Texas A&M looks like a perfect match. Concepcion ranked No. 17 on ESPN’s transfer rankings and is one of the best returning receivers in the country. He hit the market in the hopes of finding an offense that could help his production trend back toward his freshman output in 2023, when he won ACC Rookie of the Year after catching 71 passes for 839 yards. The Aggies, meanwhile, desperately coveted a lead receiver for quarterback Marcel Reed to help reboot one of the SEC’s weakest passing attacks. Concepcion, Mario Craver (Mississippi State) and Jonah Wilson (Houston) are all part of the solution for Mike Elko in 2025.
What to expect: Concepcion’s production to resemble 2023. His experience and work ethic already showed up this spring. He’s a polished route runner and an elusive threat with the ball in his hands. Concepcion is quick to snatch passes and transition up the seam for big gainers. He’s difficult for defensive backs to mirror in off-coverage. Concepcion has the versatile skill set to create mismatches and all-purpose yards from different alignments in this Aggies offense. He’s poised for a very successful season as a focal point out of the slot.
Top newcomer: DE Da’Shawn Womack (Transferred from LSU)
Why: Ole Miss had the fourth-worst pass defense in the SEC last season and overhauled its secondary via the portal in the offseason. But sometimes the best way to help a leaky pass defense is to beef up the pass rush. Womack has the tools to regularly live in opposing backfields, even if the one-time five-star recruit didn’t get that sort of opportunity over two years as a part-time player at LSU, where he had 23 tackles and 2.5 sacks as an underclassman. Womack has a much clearer pathway to regular playing time in Pete Golding’s scheme under the tutelage of Randall Joyner at Ole Miss in 2025.
What to expect: Womack should reach double-digit sacks in his first season in Oxford. Those are bold expectations, but we feel Womack still has untapped potential and is ready for a breakout season. At 6-foot-4 and 255 pounds in high school, he still ran a 4.7 laser-verified 40-yard dash and had a 30-inch vertical. Womack has kept the speed and only gotten bigger since getting to college. He showed flashes of his explosive athleticism and created good pressure when given the opportunity in Baton Rouge. Look for him to play a role similar to Princely Umanmielen (6-foot-4, 244 pounds, 4.72 40) as they possess similar measurables with that impressive burst, stride and bend off the corner.
Top newcomer: QB John Mateer (Transferred from Washington State)
Why: Oklahoma’s first foray into the SEC fell flat because five-star quarterback Jackson Arnold and the Sooners’ offense averaged just 24.0 points per game, their worst scoring average since 1998. Arnold then transferred to Auburn, so Mateer fills a massive need for Brent Venables at his most important position. The dual-threat quarterback was responsible for 3,965 total yards leading Washington State’s offense last year, and his 44 combined touchdowns tied with Cam Ward for most in the country. Mateer won’t have any trouble getting up to speed either, as he followed his offensive coordinator at Washington State, Ben Arbuckle, on the same path to Norman.
What to expect: Mateer will light up SEC scoreboards in 2025 and Oklahoma should bounce back. With weapons around him at wide receiver and a healthy Jaydn Ott to relieve some early-down pressure in the backfield, the offense should come out of the gate fast, particularly with Mateer’s confidence and familiarity with the system. He’s a quick-release rhythm passer who will spread the ball out decisively and accurately underneath and win on his strikes downfield. Mateer can run, too, which will complement this version of the Air Raid pass-heavy offense. The Sooners have much more depth up front to keep him upright, but Mateer will show more natural playmaking ability to extend plays and get out of trouble than Arnold did a season ago.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway