Bold start: Predicting which teams will reach the College Football Playoff next year is a guessing game, but it’s a fun one that reveals a lot about turnover, QB depth, and program momentum. And this is the part most people miss: the landscape can shift dramatically in a single season, even for programs that look destined for the final four.
Let’s reframe Mandel’s Mailbag discussion in clear, beginner-friendly English while keeping every key detail intact, expanding slightly where it helps understanding, and maintaining a friendly yet professional tone.
Anticipating CFP teams and the QB class
If you’re wondering how many fresh faces might crack the playoff field this coming season, Mandel revisits the pattern from recent years. He notes that last year’s playoff included four teams that returned and eight that were new to the mix. He then analyzes the turnover by reconstructing what a 12-team field from 2021–2023 would have looked like in the following season, arriving at a typical range of seven to eight new entrants.
- From 2021 to 2022: seven new teams
- From 2022 to 2023: eight
- From 2023 to 2024: seven
- From 2024 to 2025: eight
Historically, Ohio State and Georgia were the only programs to appear in every single year of the span Mandel considered. Alabama, Oregon, and Penn State each made three appearances, eight programs appeared twice, and 16 teams appeared only once. Mandel’s analysis implies that this year’s Top 25 and early top-tier projections will likely show similar turnover, even if the exact teams differ. He also notes that two of the teams omitted from last year’s projected field were Group of Five programs, underscoring how the playoff picture can surprise us.
Top teams likely to return and potential outsiders
Mandel shares a provisional Top 12 ordering of the 2025 field, ranked from most likely to return in 2026 to least likely:
- 1) Ohio State
- 2) Oregon
- 3) Georgia
- 4) Miami
- 5) Indiana
- 6) Texas A&M
- 7) Texas Tech
- 8) Oklahoma
- 9) Alabama
- 10) Ole Miss
- 11) Tulane
- 12) James Madison
The line between confident bets and questionable bets appears around the 4/5 mark. Miami is a heavy favorite in the ACC and could be strengthened at quarterback by Darian Mensah, but Mandel points out that the Hurricanes have not yet proven they can reliably reload after losses. Indiana also faces substantial NFL exits and will need to rebuild its depth. Beyond those, predicting precise outcomes becomes trickier, which is why Mandel believes seven to eight new playoff entrants each year is a sensible expectation.
Non-CFP contenders with strong ceilings tends to rise
Beyond the CFP contenders, Mandel highlights several non-CFP programs that ranked highly in his preseason expectations:
- Notre Dame
- BYU (noting a setback after Parker Kingston’s expulsion)
- USC
- Missouri
- Michigan
- LSU (a team he would likely elevate now)
- Louisville
He also flags Boise State as the top Group of Six team to watch. The big caveat: all these projections could flip if several programs that appear strong on paper underperform in real games, or if a surprise run from a non-traditional power shakes up the field.
QB drafts, transfer dynamics, and the ‘next wave’ question
A recurring theme Mandel touches on is the strength of quarterback classes in recent drafts. He acknowledges that the current cycle feels underwhelming at the top, possibly due to the transfer portal and players spending more years in one system before entering the league. Mandel reflects that two years ago the quarterback class looked exceptional on paper (with names like Caleb Williams and Drake Maye baselining the discussion), but even then, several top players moved between schools, complicating team-building narratives.
Mandel proposes a thought-provoking theory: maybe the mild quality of this year’s top QB prospects partly results from more players staying in college for NIL opportunities, rather than turning pro early. He invites readers to consider how this would alter narratives about players such as Arch Manning, Dante Moore, and LaNorris Sellers if they were entering the NFL Draft sooner.
The takeaway is nuanced: while this year’s quarterback group might not look elite at the very top, a wave of underclassmen or lesser-used players could still emerge as high-round picks in the next couple of years. Mandel cautions that if the trend of turning pro later continues, the NFL draft landscape could shift accordingly, potentially impacting how teams plan for 2027 and beyond.
G6 teams and CFP viability: a hypothetical yet plausible scenario
A frequent debate among fans asks whether a Group of Six program can win a CFP game in the next five years. Mandel answers affirmatively, arguing that a 12-seed over a 5-seed upset is not unprecedented and that recent history already proves that smaller programs can punch above their weight when the right mix of personnel and scheduling aligns.
He cites Boise State’s 2024 performance as a recent example of a strong G6 team that could have earned a higher seed under a different format, suggesting that with the right opportunities, an upset is plausible within a five-year window. The broader implication is that realignment and scheduling shifts could increasingly empower G6 programs to challenge the traditional powerhouses more often.
Fan-inquiries and program loyalties
Mandel also fields questions from fans seeking a rooting recommendation. For a UK-based NFL fan getting into college football, he suggests Kansas as a scrappy underdog with a Central/Eastern time-zone footprint and an exciting recent history under coach Lance Leipold, noting that the program has had ups and downs but remains a compelling case study in turnaround potential.
On conference realignment questions, Mandel emphasizes the uncertainty surrounding future media-rights deals and the broader structure of college football’s traditional power blocs. He points to a New York Times report about private equity interests exploring a centralized approach to media rights, while acknowledging the political and regulatory hurdles such a plan would face, including potential antitrust considerations and Congressional action. The key takeaway is that predicting 2030s realignment is still speculative, given the many moving parts involved.
Alabama’s ongoing trajectory and scheduling practicality
For Alabama fans wondering about realistic expectations in the near term, Mandel argues that the NIL/portal era has changed the ceiling of sustained, dominant supremacy. He predicts that Alabama should aim for regular CFP appearances, consistent SEC contention, and frequent national-title discussions—akin to the trajectory Georgia has followed since 2023. He cautions that the coming seasons may include growing pains, especially as Alabama develops younger rosters and navigates a challenging schedule later in the year. Still, with durable coaching and strategic roster management, the program could stabilize into a high-level contender by 2027.
In-season scheduling and TV-time considerations
A fan asks about late game times across conferences, particularly the challenges of scheduling Nebraska and UCLA late at night. Mandel explains that cross-country scheduling reflects the value of media-rights deals, which influence kickoff windows. He notes that conferences could trade some monetary intake for greater control over game times, but the current ecosystem prioritizes maximizing broadcast value for marquee matchups, even if it means late nights for some fans.
Pac-12 realignment and Group of Six prospects
Finally, a Boise-fans’ question about the new Pac-12’s prospects for a Group of Six playoff bid is addressed. Mandel argues the Pac-12’s advantage lies in having Boise State as a perennial G6 powerhouse and in a flexible schedule that could help boost rankings. However, the real challenge remains depth beyond the top contenders, as other G6 leagues navigate coaching changes and shifting competitive balance. The practical takeaway is that while the Pac-12 has strengths, it still faces uncertainty about its overall strength compared with American and other Group of Six leagues.
Closing note on Kansas and Leipold
Mandel teases readers with a light-hearted jab about Lance Leipold’s status, hinting that the 2026 edition of his annual head coach rankings will reveal whether Leipold has ascended to the top tier yet. The implication is that coaching performance is a moving target in a rapidly evolving landscape, where even proven programs must adapt or risk slipping in the national perception.
If you’re curious about more from Mandel’s Mailbag and the evolving world of college football, stay tuned for his next round of insights. And—because this topic invites debate—what do you think about the likelihood of a G6 team winning a CFP game within five years? Do you believe the current path of realignment will favor larger brands or teams with recent on-field success? Share your views in the comments.
