​ESPN’s preseason Football Power Index (FPI) rankings have once again revived one of college football’s most familiar offseason debates: how much respect should the Southeastern Conference receive before a single game is played? The latest FPI release places 12 SEC programs in the Top 25, making up 48% of the rankings and renewing the perennial question of how much the conference’s standing is earned on the field versus built on reputation.
Texas is ranked No. 2, Georgia No. 5, Alabama No. 8, LSU No. 9, Texas A&M No. 11, Oklahoma No. 12, Ole Miss No. 14, Tennessee No. 16, Florida No. 18, Missouri No. 21, Auburn No. 22, and South Carolina No. 23. No other conference comes close to matching that representation.
But the ranking drawing the most discussion isn’t Texas or Georgia. It’s the middle of the pack. Florida, coming off a 4-8 season, is projected at No. 18. Auburn, at 5-7 and bowl-ineligible last year, sits at No. 22. Missouri, following an 8-5 campaign, lands at No. 21.
Critics regard these placements as the latest evidence of what’s been described as “SEC bias”—the belief that teams from the conference receive more preseason deference than comparable programs elsewhere. The timing of the rankings has amplified that argument. After last season, the SEC posted a 4-10 bowl record, one of the conference’s weakest bowl performances in recent memory. While bowl outcomes can be affected by opt-outs, transfers, and coaching changes, the poor record provided ammunition for those who contend the league’s depth is overstated.
The critique echoes a familiar line of inquiry. If a team from another conference had gone 4-8, would it begin the next season ranked No. 18? If a 5-7 team from the ACC, Big 12, or Big Ten appeared in the preseason Top 25, would the reaction be the same? These questions gain traction as the SEC continues to dominate preseason rankings even amid uneven results from some of its middle-tier programs.
Advocates of the rankings emphasize the purpose of FPI itself. The metric is intended to forecast future performance, not to reward past achievements. Elements such as recruiting rankings, returning production, transfer portal additions, and overall roster talent all factor heavily into the model’s calculations. Florida and Auburn, for instance, continue to recruit at levels most programs cannot match, helping to explain why predictive systems remain optimistic about both teams despite last year’s disappointing records.
That distinction matters: FPI is not claiming that Florida was the 18th-best team in the country last year. It is projecting that Florida could be the 18th-best team entering this season. Whether you view that as a signal of future potential or as an overstatement of capability depends on how you interpret the model’s design and its emphasis on forward-looking indicators.