Internet is up in arms about ESPN FPI rankings, but everyone is missing one key point

As we inch closer to the start of the college football season, one of the byproducts of this point in the offseason is the introduction of preseason polls and predictions.

With conference media days popping up, media members of each respective league will attempt to prognosticate and predict where each team will finish in the standings while other polls will rank the teams on a number of different criteria before the start of the year.

One of the most infamous and controversial "polls" is ESPN's Football Power Index — FPI for short — and the latest edition of it was just unleashed on an unsuspecting and incensed public.

IS ANOTHER TEAM READY TO TAKE OVER THE TOP OF THE BIG TEN FROM INDIANA AND OHIO STATE?

These 25 teams and their placement in the FPI has caused more consternation on social media than anything outside of maybe politics, as many angry fans from all over have directed their ire towards the power index, but they're missing a key point in their anger.

The Football Power Index is exactly what the name suggests: a power index for football teams.

It's not a predicted finish for the top 25 at the end of the season, which is exactly what I see people bring up.

IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A BIG 12 WINNER NOT NAMED TEXAS TECH OR BYU, CONSIDER THE HOUSTON COUGARS

"Texas was number one in last year's preseason FPI, and they didn't even make the Playoff."

Correct, but just because they were number one in the preseason FPI doesn't mean they were supposed to finish number one in the final AP Poll.

The FPI rates teams based on a number of factors and simulations from a model to predict which teams would be favored on a neutral site.

JAMES MADISON COACH BILLY NAPIER FINALLY REVEALS WHAT WENT WRONG AT FLORIDA IN RECENT INTERVIEW

To borrow a phrase from Josh Pate, "It's a rating, not a ranking."

Let's go back to Texas.

They were number one in last season's preseason FPI based on the talent they had on their roster, and by the end of the season, you could argue they were playing the best football of anyone.

The power rating may have been a little early on Arch Manning, but once he started playing up to his potential, the rest of the team looked like world beaters.

They only missed the College Football Playoff by virtue of a road loss in early October to the Florida Gators.

Speaking of those same Gators, many people tried to dunk on them for being in the top 20 of last season's opening FPI ratings.

After all, they did finish 4-8 and ended up firing their head coach, but there's more to it than that.

Talent wise, the Gators were right up there with anyone, and you could argue they had a top-20 roster to go along with their top-20 power rating (which is a large portion of what goes into the FPI's ratings).

Florida took down Texas as mentioned above, and lost to two CFP teams (Ole Miss and Georgia) by a combined 14 points and had the ball with a chance to win late in the fourth quarter of both games.

Billy Napier wasn't fired because he went 4-8 with 4-8 talent. He was fired for going 4-8 with 9-3 talent.

The Gators had seven players drafted in the 2026 NFL Draft in April and several more players on their roster were some of the most coveted in the transfer portal, namely edge rusher Jayden Woods and running back Jadan Baugh.

Florida is just one example, but many on the internet are crying about SEC bias in the latest FPI.

A staggering 12 teams from the Southeastern Conference were included in the ratings, so that clearly means ESPN is in bed with the SEC once again, right?

For starters, a large portion of the ratings come from a computer model, and although models can be programmed with certain biases as a result of their creator, I don't think that's the case here.

Also, if you look at the top 25 best odds of teams to win the national championship, you'll see the same number of teams from the SEC (12) that you see in the FPI.

Speaking of SEC bias, I notice the same people banging that drum are ignoring the fact that Penn State and Clemson were placed fifth and 11th, respectively, in the 2025 preseason FPI ratings. Both the Tigers and Nittany Lions finished 7-6 and were duking it out in the New Era Pinstripe Bowl by season's end.

Neither team hails from the SEC, so was FPI biased in rating those two teams as high as it did? Not likely.

Both teams had an embarrassment of riches in terms of roster talent and just grossly underperformed.

James Franklin was sent packing from Happy Valley as a result and Dabo Swinney probably would have been fired too if he wasn't such a legend at Clemson.

It's worth noting that Penn State took eventual national champion Indiana to the wire in a regular season game, so it's not like the Nittany Lions were complete pushovers either. All of this is a long-winded way of saying that, yes, FPI is flawed, as is any rating system.

It's just a model used to predict spreads and odds based on neutral field favorability.

As a matter of fact, this edition of the FPI looks pretty accurate when compared to what most are saying about the landscape of college football for 2026.

The Big Ten has the better top end, with two of the best teams in the country in Oregon and Ohio State and another sitting just outside the top five in Indiana, while the SEC might be the deeper conference overall, albeit with a lower ceiling than the Big Ten.

I understand it's fun to scream and yell about anything and everything on the internet these days, but most people don't even understand what they're whining about.

Just remember: it's a rating, not a ranking. And let's try to get through this offseason without losing our minds any more than we already have.