2026 College Football Analysis, Part 7: Projecting the Playoff Bracket

Over the past few weeks, this series has covered a lot of ground. We started by looking back at 2025, then took a close look at Michigan State’s schedule before projecting the winners of all ten Football Bowl Subdivision conferences.

Now it is time to put all the pieces together and build a 12-team College Football Playoff bracket.

Last Year's Picks in Review

Now that we have mapped out the outcomes for all 10 FBS conferences in 2026, let's take a quick look back at how accurate last year's predictions were using the same methodology.

Table 1 shows my picks for the 2025 conference title game participants using both the Most Likely and Disruptive scenarios. The correct picks are shaded in yellow and listed on the right side of the table. The preseason odds for both the projected and actual winners are also included for reference.

Table 1: Summary of last year’s picks for the conference title game participants using both the Most Likely and Disruptive scenarios. The preseason odds for both the projected and actual winners are provided, with correct picks shaded in yellow.

The same data for the winners of each conference are given in Table 2.

Table 2: Summary of last year’s conference champion picks using both the Most Likely and Disruptive scenarios. The preseason odds for both the projected and actual winners are provided, with correct picks shaded in yellow.

For conference title game participants, the odds-based Most Likely Scenario correctly identified six of the possible 18 teams. The Disruptive Scenario produced four correct picks.

The Disruptive Scenario correctly picked Tulane, BYU, Boise State, and James Madison to make their respective conference championship games. BYU was the only unique pick made by the Disruptive Scenario that ended up being correct. The Most Likely Scenario correctly picked Ohio State, UNLV, and Alabama to make their respective conference championship games.

On the conference level, both scenarios got three picks correct out of nine champions and the two scenarios agreed on all three of those picks. Both scenarios correctly picked Boise State to win the Mountain West, Tulane to win the American, and James Madison to win the Sun Belt.

While that success rate may seem low, the sum of the odds in each table gives the preseason expected value for the predictions, and those numbers landed well within expectations. My analysis expected to get 7.3 title game participants correct and identified six. At the conference champion level, 2.6 correct picks were expected, and each model produced three.

As a final note, Table 1 also shows that while the odds-based lens suggests teams with at least a 30% chance to make their respective conference championship games are the safest bets, the reality is often much messier.

Of the 18 conference title game participants, five teams had preseason odds below 10%, and five more had odds between 10% and 20.1%. This year will likely play out similarly.

Back in August of 2025, no one predicted that Kennesaw State (3.1%), Virginia (4.4%), Western Michigan (6.7%), Duke (7.6%), or Indiana (9.9%) would make their respective conference title games. But they all did. College football, as always, is full of surprises.

Review of the 2026 Conference Champion Predictions

Table 3 summarizes the results shared in the previous parts of this series for the two teams from each conference that are expected to meet in their respective conference championship games from three different points of view.

Table 3: Review of the projected conference championship game participants based on the preseason simulation results, the Most Likely Scenario, and the Disruptive Scenario.

The left side of the table presents the likely conference championship participants based on the raw odds generated from my preseason Monte Carlo simulation of the full season. The middle of the table gives the results from my Most Likely Scenario, where all the favored teams win every game.

The results on the right show the Disruptive Scenario. This scenario starts by assuming the favored teams win every game on the full-season schedule, then adjusts the results to add a historically reasonable number of road upsets.

The right side of the table gives each team's record in the Disruptive Scenario, as well as some of the notable wins and losses for each team in that scenario. I use the results of the Disruptive Scenario as my official picks.

Table 4 gives the picks for each conference championship game winner using the three sets of assumptions discussed above.

Table 4: Review of the conference champion picks based on the preseason simulation results, the Most Likely Scenario, and the Disruptive Scenario.

There is a significant amount of agreement among the three sets of predictions, but there are also some notable differences. The second teams to qualify for the championship games in the ACC, Big Ten, and SEC are the biggest points of disagreement.

Also note that each table includes the sum of the odds for each set of picks at the bottom. Similar to last year, and every year that I have tracked these stats, only seven or eight championship game participants and two or three conference winner selections are expected to be correct.

That is not evidence of a systematic flaw in my preseason analysis, or anyone else’s. As discussed in Part 1, it is simply a reflection of the uncertainty surrounding team quality, the schedules those teams will face, and the role of plain old luck.

Playoff Selection

Based on the current playoff selection criteria, the four Power Four champions and the highest-ranked Group of Six team will all earn automatic bids to the College Football Playoff. Based on the information in Tables 3 and 4, my Disruptive Scenario would produce the following automatic qualifiers:

• Miami (11-2): Wins versus Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Florida State. Losses at Notre Dame and at Clemson.
• Ohio State (10-3): Wins over Oregon, USC, and Michigan. Losses at Texas, at Indiana, and at USC.
• Texas Tech (13-0): Wins over BYU, Houston, and Cincinnati. No losses.
• Georgia (11-2): Wins over Oklahoma, Alabama, and Florida. Losses at Alabama and at Ole Miss.
• Boise State (12-1): Wins over San Diego State (twice) and at Fresno State. Loss at Oregon.

The remaining seven slots would be filled from the pool of teams that either lost in a conference championship game or did not qualify. In this scenario, the power four conference championship game losers are:

• Clemson (10-3): Wins over Miami, South Carolina, and Virginia Tech. Losses at LSU, at Florida State, and versus Miami.
• USC (10-3): Wins over Ohio State, Oregon, and at UCLA. Losses at Indiana, at Penn State, and versus Ohio State.
• BYU (11-2): Wins over Notre Dame, Arizona, and TCU. Losses at Utah and versus Texas Tech.
• Alabama (10-3): Wins over Georgia, Texas A&M, and Vanderbilt. Losses at LSU, at Tennessee, and versus Georgia

The following teams would also likely be in the running for a at-large playoff spots:

• Notre Dame (11-1): Wins over Miami, SMU, and Wisconsin. Loss at BYU.
• Oregon (10-2): Wins versus Michigan, Nebraska, and at Illinois. Losses at Ohio State and at USC.
• Michigan (10-2): Wins versus Indiana, Penn State, and Oklahoma. Losses at Ohio State and at Oregon. 
• Louisville (10-2): Wins versus SMU, at Kentucky, and at NC State. Losses at Ole Miss and at Georgia Tech.
• Texas (9-3): Wins over Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Ole Miss. Losses at Texas A&M, at LSU, and at Tennessee. 
• Indiana (10-2): Wins over Ohio State, USC, and at Nebraska. Losses at Michigan and at Washington.
• Penn State (10-2): Wins over USC and at Northwestern. Losses at Michigan and at Washington.
• Utah (10-2): Wins over BYU and at Cincinnati. Losses at Arizona and at TCU.

The procedure for creating the 12-team College Football Playoff bracket is very similar to last year, but with a few subtle changes.

This year, the champions of each Power Four conference will receive automatic bids no matter where they are ranked relative to any of the Group of Six teams.

Furthermore, while the Group of Six as a whole is still guaranteed one playoff bid, that team no longer needs to be a conference champion. It only needs to be the highest-ranked team from that cohort.

Had this rule been in place last year, ACC champion Duke would have taken the place of James Madison in the playoff bracket.

Notre Dame is also promised a spot in the playoff as long as the Irish finish in the top 12 of the final College Football Playoff rankings. But this rule is unlikely to come into play. It would be easy for the committee to place the Irish at No. 13 if it did not believe they deserved a bid.

As was the case last year, the top four seeds will receive first-round byes, regardless of conference affiliation or status as a conference champion. The remaining eight teams will be placed into the bracket based on their final ranking in the College Football Playoff poll.

Notably, no consideration is given to avoiding regular-season rematches or conference affiliation when the bracket is constructed. I maintain my position that this is, by far, the weakest and most illogical aspect of the current bracketing principles.

Attempting to predict how the committee would rank the teams in this specific scenario is difficult. To estimate the playoff rankings, I use a simple algorithm that combines my power index (a rating system that mirrors betting lines) with my strength-of-resume metric.

When I apply that algorithm to the scenario outlined above, the top four seeds would be:

• No. 1 Texas Tech 
• No. 2 Georgia
• No. 3 Miami 
• No. 4 Notre Dame 

Each of those teams would receive a first-round bye and advance to one of the quarterfinal bowl games. Each team would also be given the option to select its preferred quarterfinal and semifinal bowl location, based on seed.

As the lone undefeated Power Four team, Texas Tech would be difficult to leave out of the No. 1 spot. Georgia and Miami make sense in the top four as SEC and ACC champions, and one-loss Notre Dame would likely get the nod for the fourth bye over three-loss Big Ten champion Ohio State.

In this scenario, Texas Tech would almost certainly opt to play its quarterfinal game in the Cotton Bowl in Dallas and would likely prefer the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans if the Red Raiders advance to the semifinals.

As the No. 2 seed, Georgia would almost certainly select the Peach Bowl in Atlanta as its quarterfinal venue and, by default, would be slotted into the Orange Bowl in Miami for a potential semifinal game.

No. 3 seed Miami would then have the option of selecting either the Fiesta Bowl in Glendale, Arizona, or the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California, as its quarterfinal venue. Proximity suggests the Hurricanes would select the Fiesta Bowl, leaving No. 4 Notre Dame with the Rose Bowl.

Based on my algorithm, seeds No. 5 to No. 12 would be the following teams:

• No. 5 Ohio State
• No. 6 Oregon
• No. 7 BYU
• No. 8 Michigan
• No. 9 Alabama
• No. 10 USC
• No. 11 Texas
• No. 12 Boise State

My algorithm actually has Oregon slightly above Ohio State, but the Big Ten champion Buckeyes’ head-to-head victory over the Ducks would almost certainly move Ohio State ahead of Oregon on the seed line. All of the other placements seem reasonable.

The most challenging and potentially controversial pick would be selecting Texas (9-3) over defending national champion Indiana (10-2). The Longhorns’ No. 2 overall strength of schedule, compared to the Hoosiers’ No. 39 schedule, plays a major role.

Also note that this bracket has very little potential for regular-season rematches, which is a good thing. I would not recommend any modifications to the seeding based on this important, but still unrecognized, bracketing principle.

Playoff Projection

If the above seeding is correct, we can project how this hypothetical bracket would play out. I will use the preseason power ratings to calculate a point spread for each game, starting with the four first-round matchups. I will assume that the favored teams win all 11 playoff games:

• No. 12 Boise State at No. 5 Ohio State (-22.7)
• No. 11 Texas at No. 6 Oregon (-5.9)
• No. 10 USC at No. 7 BYU (-2.5)
• No. 9 Alabama at No. 8 Michigan (-1.1)

On a neutral field, both USC and Alabama would be slight favorites over BYU and Michigan. But because these games would be played on campus sites, I applied the standard home-field advantage to the spread calculation, which shifts both lines toward the home team.

The quarterfinal round of the playoff would then play out as follows:

• Cotton Bowl: No. 1 Texas Tech (-3.2) versus No. 8 Michigan
• Peach Bowl: No. 2 Georgia (-8.2) versus No. 7 BYU
• Fiesta Bowl: No. 3 Miami (+5.2) versus No. 6 Oregon
• Rose Bowl: No. 4 Notre Dame (+2.4) vs. No. 5 Ohio State

Even with the revised seeding principles in place, my model calls for upsets in two of the four quarterfinal games. That speaks to the tension between seeding teams based on performance and projecting games based on team strength.

The semifinal round reinforces that principle and would look like this:

• Sugar Bowl: No. 1 Texas Tech (+8.9) versus No. 5 Ohio State
• Orange Bowl: No. 2 Georgia (+3.3) versus No. 6 Oregon

My model calls for upsets in both semifinal games, setting up an all-Big Ten rematch in the national championship game in Las Vegas.

That matchup would be:

• No. 5 Ohio State (-1.2) versus No. 6 Oregon

Based on my analysis, I project Ohio State to win the national championship for the 2026-27 season in a rematch of its regular-season meeting with Oregon on Nov. 7 in Columbus, Ohio.

At the end of the day, a 12-team bracket gives elite teams that stumble once or twice, or even three times, a chance at redemption. In 2024, No. 8 seed Ohio State defeated No. 7 seed Notre Dame to win the national title. My analysis of the 2026-27 season suggests a similar ending is certainly possible.

That year, my analysis showed that despite their lower seeds, the Buckeyes and Fighting Irish were the two strongest teams in the country. The expanded tournament gave those teams another chance to prove it on the field. The 2026-27 season may demonstrate that same principle once again.

As Week 0 approaches, this preseason journey is almost over. But there is still one more stop to make. Throughout this series, I have made several references to odds and betting lines. So, can the data presented here actually be used to make a little money? That question is the focus of the next and final installment of this year’s series. Stay tuned.